Court’s Decision:
The High Court of Orissa dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner (a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, or CISF) seeking to challenge his dismissal from service. The Court ruled that the penalty of dismissal, which had been imposed following departmental proceedings, was not disproportionately harsh in relation to the misconduct committed by the petitioner. The Court upheld the decision of the disciplinary authority, confirming the penalty and rejecting the petitioner’s appeal.
Facts:
The petitioner was a Constable in CISF, posted at NALCO (National Aluminium Company Limited) in Angul. On the night of July 26-27, 2009, he was assigned to duty at Railway Gate No. 1 of NALCO’s Central Processing Plant (CPP). Around 4:35 AM, during his shift, he left his assigned duty post without authorization and went to a nearby watchtower where a fellow Constable, Ravindra Kumar Dubey, was posted for sentry duty. Upon reaching the watchtower, the petitioner ordered Dubey to come down. As Dubey descended from the tower, the petitioner suddenly stabbed him in the neck, causing severe bleeding. Dubey was immediately taken to the NALCO Township Hospital, where he was treated for his injuries, including stitches.
The petitioner was issued a charge sheet on August 9, 2009, under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules for gross misconduct and indiscipline. Following a departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority found the petitioner guilty of the charges and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. This penalty was confirmed upon appeal and revision, and the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the decision.
Issues:
The main issue before the High Court was whether the penalty of dismissal imposed on the petitioner was justified and whether the court should interfere with the disciplinary findings. The Court also had to consider if the disciplinary authority had properly followed the procedure and if the findings were based on sufficient evidence.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- Lack of evidence: The petitioner argued that there was no evidence to prove that he had left his duty post without authorization. He claimed that the charges were based on mere assumptions rather than facts.
- Personal opinion: He contended that the findings of the disciplinary authority were based on personal opinions and not on objective evidence. He argued that the dispute between the two Constables was personal in nature, and the disciplinary authority had wrongly considered it as official misconduct.
- Absence of witnesses: The petitioner pointed out that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident and that no material evidence, such as items seized from the scene, was found to substantiate the charges.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- Limited scope of judicial review: The respondents (Union of India and others) argued that the scope for judicial review of disciplinary proceedings was very limited. They pointed out that unless the disciplinary findings were grossly erroneous or arbitrary, they should not be interfered with. The respondents emphasized that the Court could not reappreciate the evidence presented during the inquiry.
- Severity of the misconduct: The respondents also argued that the petitioner’s actions (stabbing a colleague on duty) were serious and warranted the penalty of dismissal. They asserted that the penalty was appropriate given the gravity of the offense, and it was not disproportionate to the crime committed.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court analyzed the legal principles concerning judicial review of disciplinary actions. It cited previous judgments to emphasize that:
- The Court’s role in such cases is not to reappreciate the evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the disciplinary authority.
- Judicial review is not a second appeal, and the Court can only intervene if the disciplinary proceedings violate basic principles of justice (e.g., violation of natural justice, lack of evidence, or improper procedure).
- In departmental inquiries, the standard of proof is based on the “preponderance of probability” rather than the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt.”
Precedent Analysis:
The Court referenced previous judgments, particularly the case of Union of India vs. Dalbir Singh (2021) and Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran (2015), which established that:
- The High Court should not act as an appellate body in disciplinary proceedings.
- The Court should not reassess the evidence presented in the inquiry unless there is a violation of the law or the findings are arbitrary.
- The Court’s power of review is confined to ensuring that the inquiry followed due process, that the evidence supported the conclusions, and that the disciplinary authority acted within its jurisdiction.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court emphasized that judicial review is concerned with the fairness of the process rather than the correctness of the disciplinary findings. The disciplinary authority had conducted the inquiry following proper procedures, and the evidence was found to support the charge against the petitioner. The Court pointed out that the petitioner’s actions (stabbing a colleague) were gross misconduct, not just a minor disciplinary issue. The Court also noted that there was sufficient evidence, including the victim’s testimony, to substantiate the charges against the petitioner.
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the petitioner had not established any valid grounds for interference with the disciplinary authority’s decision. The penalty of dismissal was deemed appropriate and justified given the nature of the offense. The Court further stated that the disciplinary authority’s findings, which had been upheld on appeal and revision, were not arbitrary or based on personal opinion.
Implications:
This case highlights several important points:
- Limited judicial intervention: Courts will generally not interfere with disciplinary decisions unless there is a clear violation of the law, a breach of natural justice, or findings based on no evidence.
- Seriousness of misconduct: In cases involving serious misconduct, such as violence on duty, the penalty of dismissal can be deemed appropriate and not excessive.
- Standard of proof: In departmental inquiries, the standard of proof is based on the “preponderance of probability” and not “beyond reasonable doubt” as in criminal trials.
The decision reaffirms that disciplinary authorities in organizations like the CISF have the discretion to impose penalties based on the gravity of misconduct, and such decisions are likely to be upheld unless there are clear legal grounds for intervention.