Calcutta High Court Upholds Inclusion of Past Misconduct in Charge-Sheet for Determining Quantum of Punishment

The Calcutta High Court has affirmed that an employee's past misconduct can be referenced in a charge-sheet to determine the quantum of punishment without rendering the disciplinary proceedings illegal. This decision was made in the case of Yeshveer vs. Union of India and Others, where the appellant, a constable with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), challenged the inclusion of a previous misconduct in the charge-sheet.

The appellant was stationed at the Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited (BRPL) and was issued a major penalty charge-sheet on December 11, 2008, alleging three charges of misconduct. The appellant denied all charges, and an inquiry officer was appointed. The inquiry officer's report found all charges to be proved, leading the disciplinary authority to impose the penalty of removal from service. Upon appeal, the appellate authority modified the punishment to a reduction in pay to a lower stage in the time scale for three years, during which the appellant would not earn increments. The appellant's revision petition was dismissed, prompting the filing of a writ petition, which was also dismissed by the Single Judge. Subsequently, the appellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.

The appellant contended that the charge-sheet was flawed due to the lack of specific details, such as the names and identities of 16 strangers who allegedly entered the premises during his absence, thereby depriving him of an opportunity to defend himself. Additionally, the appellant argued that incorporating a past misconduct from 2007, for which he had already been punished, into the fresh charge-sheet amounted to imposing a second punishment for the same offence. He also challenged the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, particularly the CCTV footage, which was found to have a time discrepancy.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Smita Das De, held that the inclusion of past misconduct in the charge-sheet was permissible for determining the quantum of punishment. The court referred to Supreme Court judgments in State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda and Union of India v. Bishamber Das Dogra, which upheld the practice of considering previous misconduct when deciding on the penalty. The court emphasized that such inclusion benefits the employee by providing an opportunity to defend against the past misconduct.

Regarding the appellant's argument about the CCTV evidence, the court noted that the appellant had candidly admitted to leaving his post to visit an ATM without informing his shift in-charge. This admission was deemed sufficient to establish the misconduct. The court further observed that as a member of a para-military force tasked with guarding a sensitive installation, leaving the post unguarded was a serious misconduct. The appellate authority had already applied the doctrine of proportionality by reducing the punishment from removal to a reduction in pay, which was deemed appropriate given the gravity of the proven misconduct.

In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court upheld the disciplinary proceedings and the modified penalty, affirming that the past misconduct could be considered in the charge-sheet for determining the quantum of punishment. The court's decision underscores the importance of maintaining discipline and accountability within paramilitary forces and reinforces the legal framework for handling misconduct in such organizations.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community