For Mere Unauthorised Absence, Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement Too Harsh: Patna HC

Patna High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Purnendu Singh quashed an order that imposed compulsory retirement on a CISF constable for allegedly misbehaving at work. The court held that the punishment was disproportionate, and further directed the Disciplinary Authority to impose a lesser punishment. The court explained that a disproportionate penalty attracts Article 21 of the Constitution, and if the punishment is unreasonable, it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Background Deo Narayan Singh worked as a constable at CISF Unit, Dhanbad. On 4 September 2010, he was issued a charge memo under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 (2007 Amendment). The charges were based on a complaint made by Sahdeo Thakur, the Loading Clerk. He alleged that Narayan Singh had misbehaved with him and had a scuffle during duty hours. He further alleged that Narayan Singh was absent from his duty post. Three charges were framed against Singh: firstly, that he was absent from night duty for two hours on 29 July 2010. Second, that around 1 AM the same night, he left his position and quarreled with Sahdeo Thakur. Third, that during his service period, he had been punished with 11 penalties for various disciplinary violations, making him a habitual offender. A departmental enquiry was initiated under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules. However, Narayan Singh claimed that he was not given any reasonable opportunity to cross examine the witness, there was no preliminary enquiry held, and no preliminary show cause notice was issued either. After the inquiry, Narayan Singh was found guilty. The punishment imposed was “Compulsory Retirement from service with 100% Pension and Gratuity.” His appeal and revision petition was also dismissed by the Appellate and Revisional Authority on 3 Nov 2011. Aggrieved, Narayan Singh filed the present writ petition . Arguments Representing Narayan Singh, Mr. Bhairaw Sharma argued that the penalty imposed was too harsh. He argued that compulsory retirement was too disproportionate to the charges. He argued that the proceedings also violated principles of natural justice, as it was held without issuing a preliminary show cause notice, or holding any other preliminary enquiry regarding the allegations. Citing Union of India v. R.K. Sharma (Civil Appeal No. 4059 of 2015), he argued that a similar penalty order was quashed and the matter was remanded back to impose lesser punishment. Representing the Union, Mr. Radhikaraman argued that Narayan Singh failed to secure an appeal or a revision petition against the order. He argued that there was no evidence to prove that Singh did not receive the preliminary enquiry report or the show cause notice. Thus, they maintained that the order was proper and did not call for any modification by the court. Court's Findings Firstly, the court noted that the Union had not provided any information regarding whether Narayan Singh was provided an opportunity to present his version before the Authority. While a preliminary enquiry was indeed conducted, the court held that the Union failed to uphold Natural Justice principles by adequately hearing Narayan Singh in the proceedings. Secondly, the court acknowledged that the charges against Narayan Singh were proved, and resulted in the penalty order of 'Compulsory Retirement.' Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Amrender Kumar Pandey v. Union of India and Ors. (2022 Live Law SC 600), the court held that in such cases, discharge from service was too harsh. The court explained that for mere unauthorized absences, one must treat the Appellant as having been in service till the qualifying service for pension is completed. Thirdly, the court noted that when disproportionate penalties are involved, it triggers Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, the court explained that if the punishment is unreasonable, it would also violate Article 14. Further citing B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal. No. 3604 of 1988), the court found that dismissal from service was too harsh for mere unauthorised absence. Accordingly, the court remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority, and asked the Authority to reconsider the penalty and impose lesser punishment. Decided on: 25-06-2024 Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21188 of 2012 Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Bhairaw Nand Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Radhika Raman, Sr. CGC and Mr. Ram Tujabh Singh, CGCCase Title: Deo Narayan Singh vs The Union Of IndiaLL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 51 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

For Mere Unauthorised Absence, Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement Too Harsh: Patna HC

Pranav Kumar

Tags