'Gravest Charge Not Proven': Jharkhand HC Modifies Late CISF Personnel's Dismissal To Compulsory Retirement In Widow's Plea

Partly allowing a plea by the widow of a deceased CISF personnel–dismissed from service for misconduct, the Jharkhand High Court observed that it would be improper to relegate the widow to the disciplinary proceeding and that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate when the gravest charge was not proved. 

Justice Ananda Sen was hearing a plea of one Jayanti Devi Urmaliya, who had challenged the dismissal of her late husband, Santosh Urmaliya, from the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). She also sought direction for the release of family pension and other dues.

The Court observed that the deceased employee could not be subjected to any further disciplinary reconsideration, and continuing with the dismissal order would unfairly burden his surviving spouse.

The Court held:

“This is a rare case as the husband of the petitioner is dead and it will not be proper to relegate the widow to the disciplinary proceeding. Accordingly, the punishment of dismissal is converted to compulsory retirement.”

The petitioner's husband was posted at the CISF Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad, and was jailed on June 16, 1997, which led to his suspension from duty. A charge memo was issued on October 13, 1997, with four charges against him. A departmental inquiry was initiated. The inquiry officer was changed during the process, and the report was submitted in January 1999. The petitioner's husband gave a detailed reply on February 17, 1999. He claimed that his request to examine key witnesses was denied. On March 10, 1999, he was removed from service. His appeal was rejected on May 11, 2000. He was acquitted in the criminal case on November 4, 1998, as the prosecution failed to prove the charges.

The petitioner later filed a Writ Petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which was dismissed in 2014, on the ground of maintainability. She then filed the present writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court.

The Court in its judgement noted:

 “From the articles of charge, it is clear that second charge is of the gravest in nature. The same has not been proved in the criminal case and therefore the charge is liable to be dropped, in view of the aforesaid judgments. If that charge is dropped, dismissal on the ground of other charges will be strikingly disproportionate.”

The court noted that the departmental charges against the petitioner's husband were–that he failed to turn up on duty; allegedly pilfered 11 pistons; remained absent without leave for 36 days; and despite earlier misconduct showed no improvement in behaviour. The Court noted that the second charge, which was the gravest in nature, was not proved in the criminal trial.

The petitioner widow submitted that the departmental inquiry was unfair. She argued that the inquiry officer was changed without any reason and that her husband was not allowed to produce defence witnesses. She also relied on the acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that her husband was absent without leave and was found hiding near stolen goods. They defended the inquiry process and claimed that the punishment was justified.

The Court noted, “Acquittal in a criminal case ipso facto has no effect on departmental enquiry as the standard of proof required in criminal trial and departmental proceedings are different. In the criminal trial the charges has to be proved beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt whereas in departmental proceedings charges can be proved on the basis of preponderance of probability.”

Considering the personnel had already expired, the Court said, “it cannot be remanded back to the disciplinary authority. But this court is well empowered to modify the punishment awarded in the disciplinary proceedings.”

In conclusion, the Court modified the disciplinary punishment while ruling, “The Order No.38 passed by the respondent No. 04 dated 10.03.1999 and the appellate order No.2608 dated 11.05.2000, accordingly, stands modified. This writ petition is partly allowed with the modification in punishment to the extent as stated above.”

Case Title: Jayanti Devi Urmaliya vs Union of India Through Secretary

Click Here To Read Judgement