Patna High Court Deems Compulsory Retirement for Unauthorised Absence as Excessive Punishment

In a significant judgment, the Patna High Court addressed the issue of disproportionate punishment in disciplinary proceedings within the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The case revolved around Constable Deo Narayan Singh, who was subjected to compulsory retirement following allegations of misconduct and unauthorised absence from duty. The court's decision underscores the importance of proportionality and adherence to natural justice in disciplinary actions.

Background of the Case

Deo Narayan Singh served as a constable in the CISF unit stationed in Dhanbad. On September 4, 2010, he was issued a charge memo under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 (amended in 2007). The charges stemmed from a complaint by Sahdeo Thakur, a Loading Clerk, who alleged that Singh had misbehaved and engaged in a scuffle during duty hours. Additionally, Singh was accused of being absent from his duty post.

Three specific charges were levied against Singh: firstly, his absence from night duty for two hours on July 29, 2010; secondly, leaving his position around 1 AM the same night and quarreling with Sahdeo Thakur; and thirdly, having a history of 11 penalties for various disciplinary violations, categorizing him as a habitual offender.

A departmental enquiry was initiated under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules. Singh contended that the enquiry process was flawed, citing the absence of a preliminary enquiry, lack of a show cause notice, and denial of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Despite these concerns, the enquiry concluded with Singh being found guilty. Consequently, he was subjected to compulsory retirement with full pension and gratuity. His subsequent appeals and revision petitions were dismissed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities on November 3, 2011, prompting him to file a writ petition challenging the disciplinary action.

Legal Arguments and Court's Analysis

Representing Singh, Advocate Bhairaw Sharma argued that the punishment of compulsory retirement was excessively harsh and disproportionate to the charges. He emphasized that the disciplinary proceedings violated principles of natural justice due to procedural lapses, including the absence of a preliminary enquiry and denial of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Sharma referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. R.K. Sharma (Civil Appeal No. 4059 of 2015), where a similar penalty was quashed, and the matter was remanded for imposing a lesser punishment.

On the other hand, the Union's counsel, Radhikaraman, maintained that Singh's history of disciplinary violations justified the punishment. He argued that Singh failed to secure relief through appeals and revision petitions, indicating the appropriateness of the disciplinary action.

Justice Purnendu Singh, presiding over the single-judge bench, scrutinized the case's details and the disciplinary proceedings' conduct. The court acknowledged Singh's prior disciplinary record but emphasized the necessity of proportionality in punishment. It highlighted that while maintaining discipline is crucial, the penalty must align with the gravity of the misconduct.

Judgment and Implications

The Patna High Court concluded that the punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate to the charges, particularly considering the procedural deficiencies in the enquiry process. The court emphasized that such a severe penalty, without adhering to the principles of natural justice, infringes upon the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the court quashed the order of compulsory retirement and directed the Disciplinary Authority to impose a lesser punishment commensurate with the misconduct's severity. This decision reinforces the judiciary's role in ensuring that disciplinary actions within public services are conducted fairly, proportionately, and in adherence to established legal principles.

Conclusion

The Patna High Court's ruling in the case of Deo Narayan Singh serves as a critical reminder of the importance of proportionality and procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings. While maintaining discipline within security forces is paramount, it must not come at the expense of fundamental rights and principles of natural justice. The judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding these values, ensuring that punitive measures are just, fair, and legally sound.