Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) officer on grounds of prolonged unauthorized absence from duty. The Court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision and declined to interfere with the punishment of removal from service. Holding that the officer's conduct did not warrant judicial leniency, the Court found that no mitigating circumstances justified the absence of over ten months without leave or explanation. The Court categorically concluded that the punishment imposed was not shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.

The Bench recorded that the petitioner had remained absent without any justifiable cause and also failed to participate in the disciplinary inquiry, reflecting a "strikingly defiant fashion". The Court held that the conduct exhibited was incompatible with the discipline expected in a uniformed force and did not merit intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution. Concluding that the case did not fall within the category of extraordinary cases warranting judicial review of punishment, the Court dismissed the petition without costs.

Also Read: Supreme Court Rejects Hyatt’s Appeal On India Tax Liability | Says Foreign Entity’s Temporary Indian Base Creates Permanent Establishment

The petitioner was initially appointed as Sub Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in the year 1995. Subsequently, on 30 March 2009, he was promoted to the post of Inspector. Pursuant to his promotion, he was transferred to the Gua Ore Mines located in Jharkhand on 21 August 2009. His promotion was regularized with effect from 12 October 2009.

However, by an order dated 17 May 2010, the petitioner was reverted to the position of Sub Inspector with effect from 22 May 2010. Alleging that this reversion was carried out without prior notice, the petitioner approached the High Court of Orissa through W.P.(C) No. 10143/2010.

The Orissa High Court, vide interim order dated 10 June 2010, directed that "status quo in respect of the posting of the petitioner shall be maintained till next date". This interim order, as the Delhi High Court noted, extended only to the aspect of posting and not to the reversion to the lower rank. The petitioner acknowledged this distinction in the list of dates filed along with his petition.

After obtaining the interim relief, the petitioner rejoined duties on 23 June 2010 and worked until 26 June 2010. On that date, he applied for 40 days' earned leave, which was rejected on the following day, 27 June 2010. He made another application for earned leave on 28 June 2010, which did not elicit any response. Thereafter, on 5 July 2010, the petitioner left his duties and did not report back.

Meanwhile, the Orissa High Court allowed his writ petition on 6 May 2011. Following this, the petitioner reported back to duty on the same date, i.e., 6 May 2011. However, he was not immediately taken on the rolls and was permitted to resume duty as an Inspector only in September 2011.

During the intervening period, a charge sheet dated 20 December 2010 was issued against the petitioner alleging unauthorized absence from duty. The charge sheet contained three Articles of Charges:

• Charge I alleged that the petitioner was absent from various shift duties scheduled between 27 June 2010 and 4 July 2010, without prior information or permission, thereby constituting gross indiscipline and dereliction of duty.

• Charge II stated that he was absent from 5 July 2010 onwards without authorized leave, constituting gross misconduct and indiscipline.

• Charge III recorded that the petitioner had developed a pattern of indiscipline and had previously received eight punishments, thus establishing that he was incorrigible.

The petitioner did not participate in the inquiry proceedings, despite issuance of notice. The disciplinary proceedings culminated in an order dated 20 October 2011, removing the petitioner from service. An appeal filed against the disciplinary order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 27 February 2012. A subsequent revision petition was also dismissed on 22 August 2012.

Challenging the dismissal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Delhi High Court.

The Court recorded that the petitioner had remained away from duty from 5 July 2010 to 6 May 2011. It acknowledged the petitioner’s contention that from 6 May 2011 to September 2011, he was not permitted to join duty, despite the Orissa High Court having allowed his writ petition. However, in addressing the absence between July 2010 and May 2011, the Court noted the argument of learned counsel that the petitioner "felt humiliated as having to serve as Inspector even after, as the petitioner understood, he had been granted interim relief".

Rejecting this contention, the Court observed "We regret our inability to come to the aid of the petitioner in the facts of this case."

The Bench stated the principle that courts ought not to interfere with disciplinary punishment unless the punishment is "shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct" and cited UPSRTC v Ram Kishan Arora, (2007) 4 SCC 627 in support.

The Court held that the petitioner’s absence for more than ten months without justification was not acceptable, and noted: "The order dated 10 June 2010 of the High Court of Orissa is clear and categorical... There was no stay of reversion."

Further, the Court stated: "Having accepted the order as it was passed, there was no justification for the petitioner to presume that he would be entitled to continue as an Inspector."

Criticizing the petitioner's conduct during the inquiry proceedings, the Court noted: "The non-cooperative attitude of the petitioner is also manifest from the fact that he never chose even to present himself in the inquiry proceedings."

Reiterating that judicial review under Article 226 does not extend to every punishment imposed in departmental proceedings, the Bench stated: "Article 226 cannot come to the aid of such a petitioner."

The Court underlined the responsibilities of a uniformed officer, observing: "Ups and downs in service are a part of life. A person who has joined a uniformed service has to be ready to meet these exigencies. He cannot just walk away from his duty when placed in an uncomfortable position."

Summing up the petitioner's conduct, the Bench noted: "The petitioner, in a strikingly defiant fashion, chose not to participate in the disciplinary proceedings either."

It concluded that the case did not fall under the category where the punishment was so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Court. "We are of the opinion that the present case does not fall within that exalted category of cases in which the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the conscience of the Court, so as to justify interference."

The Court unequivocally dismissed the writ petition. It held: "In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no case is made out to grant the relief sought in the petition."

Stating its stand against judicial interference in departmental disciplinary matters, the Court concluded: "The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs."

Also Read: Blacklisting Order Too Harsh | Orissa HC Ends Civil Death Of Contractor Citing Discrepancies And Denial Of Evidence | Says Proportionality Must Guide Punishment In Public Contracts

No directions were issued to the respondents beyond acknowledging their authority to take disciplinary action. The Court found no procedural impropriety or violation of principles of natural justice in the disciplinary process.

The Court refrained from granting any indulgence based on the petitioner's claim of humiliation or misunderstanding regarding the interim order. It held that there was no legal basis for the petitioner to assume he was entitled to continue as Inspector, particularly when the Orissa High Court order had not stayed the reversion.

It observed that the absence of over ten months and refusal to participate in the inquiry showed a disregard for the discipline required in a paramilitary force.

Ultimately, the Bench concluded that the penalty of removal from service was legally sustainable and warranted in the facts of the case.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC, along with Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra

Case Title: Jai Bhagwan Sangwan v. Union of India & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5996-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) 7469/2012

Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Om Prakash Shukla