27 years on, high court restores CISF constable dismissed in 1998
Recruited into CISF in 1992, the constable's services were placed under suspension on June 14, 1998, on allegations of assaulting a superior officer, misbehaviour and habitual misconduct
Closing a service dispute that travelled across courts for more than a quarter of a century, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed October 1998 removal of CISF constable Ravinder Kumar Rana and ordered his reinstatement with full consequential benefits after holding that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by contradictions, lack of evidence and non-application of mind.
The case has its genesis in a 1998 disciplinary action. Rana’s initial plea was dismissed in “limine” or at the threshold in 2000. It was revived in 2001 with the Supreme Court remanding the matter for fresh adjudication on merits leading to the present decision by Justice Sandeep Moudgil nearly 27 years after the penalty was imposed.
Background
Recruited into CISF in 1992, Rana’s services were placed under suspension on June 14, 1998, on allegations of assaulting a superior officer, misbehaviour and habitual misconduct. A chargesheet dated July 8, 1998, culminated in an inquiry where ten witnesses were examined. Relying on the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority removed him from service on October 5, 1998. His appeal was rejected on May 28, 1999.
Court finds inquiry fundamentally flawed
Setting aside both orders on the petition filed way back in 2000, Justice Moudgil after just one hearing held that the disciplinary action did not withstand judicial scrutiny. The court noted that six out of ten witnesses did not support the allegations against the petitioner, “thereby rendering the case of the prosecution doubtful, as the statements of these witnesses reflect material contradictions in the prosecution’s case”.
Referring to the evidence, the court observed more than one witness stated “no untoward incident took place”. Justice Moudgil court also took note of the petitioner’s grievance that medical evidence was produced to substantiate the allegation of physical assault. “If there was alleged physical assault in the barrack, nearby personnel present would have observed the incident and been able to give statements, yet no such corroboration exists,” the bench was told.
“The misconduct on the basis of which the delinquent employee was removed from service does not withstand judicial scrutiny, as it is vitiated by material contradictions. Notably, the prosecution witnesses themselves have failed to support the case of the complainant, thereby rendering the impugned decision unsustainable in the eyes of this court,” Justice Moudgil held.
Court analysis
Justice Moudgil asserted the inquiry officer failed to pursue the disputed points, did not obtain the medical evidence, and proceeded to hold all charges proven. “This demonstrates that the enquiry was conducted without adequate application of mind, in disregard of procedural safeguards, and with apparent bias, effectively prejudicing the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing,” the court observed.
Justice Moudgil added the reliance on past disciplinary records to establish “habitual misconduct” also warranted judicial scrutiny. Past conduct could be a factor. But it could not be used to override the requirement of proof in the present case. “The petitioner had a long and largely unblemished service record, with prior minor disciplinary actions, if any, not amounting to habitual misconduct. Past conduct may be considered, but cannot justify arbitrary or punitive removal when current charges are unsubstantiated,” the court observed.
Final directions
Allowing the petition, the court quashed the removal and appellate orders, directing that Rana be reinstated with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary and allowances, carrying 6 per cent interest per annum, with compliance to be ensured within four weeks.
“It emerges that the allegations against the petitioner were not supported by the testimony of the majority of independent witnesses. The inquiry suffered from a lack of reasoned evaluation, as material contradictions were overlooked and essential evidence, including the medical record, was not brought on record. The proceedings thus reflect arbitrariness, resulting in the imposition of a penalty of removal wholly disproportionate to the charges alleged,” Justice Moudgil concluded.
