Accidental Firing Causing No Harm Can't Attract Major Penalty: MP High Court Quashes CISF Constable's Punishment
Image Courtesy: Economic Times
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside an order imposing a major penalty on a CISF Constable after he accidentally fired a shot from his weapon while inspecting it, and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 350]
The bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that despite clear statements from the prosecution witnesses that the firing was accidental, the enquiry officer concluded that it was a deliberate breach of safety rules amounting to gross negligence.
"The doctrine of proportionality dictates that the sledgehammer of a major penalty should not be used to crack the nut of a bona fide human error. When the act complained of is a pure accident and not a deliberate, malicious or willfully insubordinate act and where absolutely no harm, loss of life or property damage has been occasioned, the imposition of a major penalty such as a cumulative reduction in pay that permanently stunts petitioner's financial and promotional avenues is shockingly disproportionate".
A petition was filed challenging the order of punishment of January 21, 2011, wherein the penalty of reduction in pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect was imposed on him, postponing future increments. The petitioner further challenged the orders of April 14 and September 16, 2011, wherein his appeal and revision were dismissed.
Per the facts, the petitioner was appointed as a constable in CISF in 1991 and was posted at the BHEL unit in Bhopal. On the night of November 15-16, 2010, the petitioner was on night shift, and he drew a rifle and 100 live rounds from the Unit Kote. While inspecting the weapon, one round was accidentally fired, but it did not cause any loss of life, property, or bodily injury. However, it was recorded in the general diary.
Subsequently, the petitioner was immediately placed under suspension. However, the department treated the matter as an accident initially, which led to the recovery of ₹18 from the petitioner as a penal cost of a fired cartridge due to accidental firing.
The charges leveled against the petitioner were those of gross negligence, careless handling of arms, and violation of lawful orders. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply asserting that the firing was a bona fide mistake.
Subsequently, respondent no 5 was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer concluded that the petitioner deliberately inserted a loaded magazine and operated the trigger, finding the charge of gross negligence fully proved. The Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate and enquiry proceedings violated the principles of natural justice. It was argued that the department witnesses have substantiated that there was no malicious intent, nor was there any injury or property damage. The petitioner argued that he was forced to work for 12 to 14 hours, which is strictly prohibited by the CISF circular of December 16, 2009.
The counsel for the respondents argued that the CISF is a paramilitary force where weapons are issued for the protection of life and property. Thus, firing a gum mistakenly after 20 years of service is a grave offence that reflects "highly casual conduct and gross negligence". The counsel further argued that the petitioner's service record also shows that he was awarded two minor punishments, one for sleeping on duty in 1996 and another for unauthorised absence in 1999/2000.
The court noted that the primary issue was the proportionality of the punishment imposed on the petitioner. The court first emphasized the limited scope of judicial review on matters of discipline within armed/paramilitary forces. However, the bench noted that the courts are not allowed to reappreciate evidence but are duty-bound to interfere if the conclusion is perverse, arbitrary or prima facie unreasonable.
The bench disagreed with the conclusions of the enquiry officer that the petitioner deliberately inserted the magazine and pulled the trigger. The bench noted that, as submitted by the prosecution witnesses, the incident was an accidental fire and a bona fide mistake. The bench noted that there was "absolutely no evidence to support the subjective conclusion of deliberate defiance or willful sabotage".
Concluding that the penalty imposed on the petitioner was a major penalty, the bench noted that the imposed penalty on the petitioner was wholly unwarranted. Relying on the doctrine of proportionality, the bench remarked,
Thus, the bench set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment while taking into consideration the mitigating factors.
Case Title: NP Dwivedi v Union of India, WP-2511-2012
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 350
For Petitioner: Advocates Utkarsh Agrawal and Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi
For Respondent: Advocate Shrikrishna Sharma