The Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that unless gross procedural impropriety, illegality, or irrationality is shown, minor procedural lapses or variance between the charge and imputation do not vitiate disciplinary proceedings. The Court held that a technical imperfection in framing charges, rectified by detailed imputations without prejudice to the employee, is not fatal to disciplinary enquiry. Existing precedent on judicial restraint in disciplinary matters is upheld; lawyers may cite this as binding authority in service law cases involving security/disciplined forces.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/4161/2010 of H.K. SIKDAR @ HIMANGSHU KR. SIMDAR Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS; CNR WBCHCA0112952010 |
| Date of Registration | 24-02-2010 |
| Decision Date | 24-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Disciplinary Proceedings under CISF Rules, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that minor procedural defects, such as technical variance between the article of charge and statement of imputation, do not invalidate disciplinary proceedings if the employee is made aware of the core allegations and has an opportunity to defend himself. The requirement of natural justice is satisfied if material particulars are disclosed and no prejudice is established. Judicial review under Article 226 does not encompass re-evaluation of evidence unless there is gross procedural impropriety, illegality, or irrationality. The penalty imposed is not shockingly disproportionate considering the discipline required in the CISF; the doctrine of proportionality was applied. The employee is permitted to approach the Disciplinary Authority for discretionary reduction of punishment, at its absolute discretion. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, a CISF constable, was penalized for gross negligence and dereliction of duty during an attempted theft incident at Alloy Steel Plant, Durgapur. Departmental enquiry under Rule 36 of CISF Rules led to imposition of penalty (reduction in pay for 5 years). The petitioner challenged the orders citing procedural lapses, including non-production of General Diary Entry, contradiction in witness statements, denial of cross-examination, and proportionality of punishment. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Calcutta High Court jurisdiction and all subordinate courts and authorities within its territorial jurisdiction, particularly in disciplinary/service matters. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and service tribunals in similar factual/service law contexts; may be cited in challenging/defending departmental proceedings involving CISF or similar forces. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that minor procedural lapses or variance between article of charge and imputations, when rectified through full particulars and absence of prejudice, do not vitiate disciplinary enquiry.
- Reaffirms the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 in disciplinary matters, emphasizing that courts are not appellate forums on facts unless gross irregularity, illegality, or irrationality is proven.
- Applies the proportionality doctrine for punishments in disciplined forces, recognizing that a severe penalty short of dismissal may still be proper if justified by the nature of service and breach.
- Recognizes the employee’s right to make a post-judgment representation for reduction of penalty, at the absolute discretion of the competent authority.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined whether the variance between the article of charge and accompanying statement of imputation was fatal to the validity of disciplinary proceedings.
- It held that the essential requirement is that the charged employee be fully informed of allegations; detailed statements of imputations and documents provided satisfied this.
- The Court found no evidence of prejudice or sustained procedural injustice; any technical imperfection in the article of charge was rectified by exhaustive narration in the imputation.
- Judicial review under Article 226 is not akin to appellate jurisdiction—interference is permissible only upon demonstration of gross illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
- On proportionality, given the petitioner’s conduct as a member of a disciplined force (CISF), reduction in pay for five years was a less harsh measure than dismissal and was not perverse or shocking.
- The Court allowed the petitioner to make a post-judgment representation to the authority for reconsideration of the penalty, making clear such decision rests on the absolute discretion of the authority.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The enquiry was vitiated by procedural lapses (non-production/verification of General Diary Entry).
- Contradictory statements by primary witnesses (regarding time of events) cast doubt on the proceedings.
- Denial of cross-examination of key witness from ‘B’ shift violated natural justice and Rule 36 procedures.
- Prosecution witnesses did not establish specific acts of negligence.
- Nature/amount of alleged stolen scrap was not identified or proven; no corroborative theft report secured.
- Penalty imposed is disproportionately harsh relative to the alleged conduct.
Respondents
- Disciplinary proceedings were properly initiated and conducted under Rule 36 of CISF Rules, 2001.
- No fatal variance existed; article of charge is a formal accusation and need not repeat all facts—details provided in imputations suffice.
- Procedural fairness assured per Rule 14(3) of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965.
- At no stage did the petitioner raise complaints of vagueness or procedural defect; such claims are afterthoughts.
- Allegations against the petitioner were clear and supported by records; penalty commensurate with gravity of proven misconduct.
Factual Background
The petitioner was a CISF constable posted at Durgapur Steel Plant, assigned to additional duty between 19:00 and 23:00 hrs on 20 April 2008. During his shift, a group of miscreants allegedly attempted to steal approximately one metric tonne of scrap material from the plant premises. The disciplinary authority charged the petitioner with gross negligence and dereliction of duty for failure to prevent or challenge the miscreants. Departmental enquiry resulted in a penalty of reduction of pay, with the appellate authority upholding the decision. The petitioner challenged the proceedings in writ jurisdiction, alleging various procedural lapses, contradiction in evidence, and disproportionate punishment.
Statutory Analysis
- Interpreted Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 governing disciplinary procedure, emphasizing procedures for framing charges and conduct of enquiries.
- Referred to Rule 14(3) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (regarding fair opportunity to defend).
- Discussed principles of natural justice as applicable to service law disciplinary proceedings.
- Applied doctrine of proportionality in determining appropriateness of penalties within disciplined forces.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
Permitted the petitioner to make a post-judgment representation within 30 days to the Disciplinary Authority for discretionary reduction of penalty, clarifying that such consideration is at the authority’s absolute discretion.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms existing principles regarding scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings and standards for assessing procedural irregularities and proportionality of penalties.