The Jharkhand High Court recently affirmed disciplinary actions against a former Assistant Commandant of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Bokaro Steel Limited (BSL), for making caste-based derogatory remarks towards a subordinate. The court's decision underscores the gravity of such misconduct within disciplined forces and clarifies the limited scope for leniency based on an individual's prior service record.
Background of the Case
The appellant, serving as an Assistant Commandant at CISF, BSL, was accused of making derogatory comments about the caste of an Inspector in 2008, in the presence of an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI). The following year, he allegedly repeated similar remarks in his office, again referencing the Inspector's caste, this time in front of another ASI. These actions were deemed intentional, aiming to humiliate the Inspector based on his Scheduled Caste status.
Upon retirement, the appellant was informed that disciplinary proceedings would continue under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. This rule permits the continuation of disciplinary actions post-retirement if the individual is found guilty of grave misconduct. Challenging the charge memo and the initiation of these proceedings, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court.
Concurrently, the aggrieved Inspector lodged a criminal complaint against the appellant, alleging offenses under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the criminal case concluded with a final report, and no conviction was recorded.
Disciplinary Proceedings and Punishment
The disciplinary authority, after reviewing the evidence and considering the advice of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), found the appellant guilty of the charges. Consequently, a penalty was imposed, entailing a permanent 20% reduction in his monthly pension and the forfeiture of his entire gratuity. The appellant's subsequent departmental appeal was dismissed, prompting him to challenge the decision before the High Court.
High Court's Analysis and Judgment
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary examined the case. The court noted that the dismissal of the criminal complaint was based on technical grounds, specifically that the alleged incidents occurred within the appellant's closed office and not in public view, which is a requirement under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, the disciplinary charges focused on the appellant's conduct in abusing a subordinate due to his caste, an act unbecoming of a government servant, especially within a disciplined force like the CISF.
The court emphasized that the term "gross misconduct" in the charge memo signifies behavior that is extremely serious in nature. The appellant's argument that the absence of the word "grave" in the charge memo should preclude the application of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules was dismissed. The court clarified that the severity of the misconduct justified the invocation of this rule.
Addressing the appellant's plea for leniency based on his previously clean service record, the court referred to precedents, including Devendra Swamy v. Karnataka SRTC (2002) and Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India (2003). These cases establish that unless a punishment is "shockingly disproportionate" to the charge, it should not be interfered with during judicial review. The court concluded that the appellant's past conduct could not mitigate the punishment, given the gravity of the offense.
The bench stated, "We cannot also overlook that the appellant was an employee in the CISF, which was a disciplined force; and when the charge is a grave one like in the instant case, leniency is not called for." The court further asserted that the punishment imposed was proportionate to the misconduct and did not warrant interference.
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment reinforces the principle that members of disciplined forces are held to stringent standards of conduct. The court's decision highlights that grave misconduct, such as caste-based discrimination, cannot be excused based on an individual's prior service record. It underscores the judiciary's stance that leniency is unwarranted in cases involving serious breaches of conduct, especially within organizations like the CISF.
The ruling also clarifies the application of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, affirming that it can be invoked in cases of grave misconduct, even if the specific term "grave" is not explicitly mentioned in the charge memo. This interpretation ensures that disciplinary authorities have the necessary tools to address serious offenses appropriately.
Conclusion
The Jharkhand High Court's decision to uphold the disciplinary actions against the former CISF officer serves as a stern reminder of the high ethical standards expected within disciplined forces. It affirms that serious misconduct, particularly actions that undermine the dignity of individuals based on caste, will attract stringent penalties, irrespective of an individual's prior service record. This judgment contributes to the broader legal framework aimed at eradicating caste-based discrimination and maintaining the integrity of disciplined services.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.