'Grave Charges': Jharkhand HC Upholds Punishment Handed To Ex-CISF Officer For Making Caste-Based Remarks Against Subordinate

The Jharkhand High Court has held that an officer's good antecedents cannot be one of the grounds to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority, especially when the charges relate to misconduct.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary confirmed the disciplinary punishment awarded to a former Assistant Commandant of Central Industrial Security Force, Bokaro Steel Limited, who was found guilty of making caste-based remarks against an Inspector in his office.

The Court 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 emphasized that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority, once confirmed by the appellate authority and a Single-Judge Bench, should not be interfered with unless it is shockingly disproportionate. Rejecting the contention that the appellant's spotless service record was a mitigating factor, the Bench held that the CISF is a disciplined force and that such serious misconduct did not deserve any leniency in penalty.

Background

On the facts of the case, the appellant was serving as Assistant Commandant, CISF at BSL. A charge memo was issued against him, alleging that he had committed an act of misconduct in 2008 by making caste-based remarks against an Inspector in front of an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI). In 2009, he allegedly repeated similar remarks in his office in the presence of another ASI, with the intent to humiliate the Inspector based on his caste.

Despite his retirement from CISF, he was informed that disciplinary proceedings would continue against him under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, which allows for action against a retired government servant if grave misconduct is established. The appellant challenged the charge memo and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by filing a writ petition before the High Court.

The complainant had also initiated a criminal case against the appellant, alleging offences under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, along with Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. However, a final report was submitted in the criminal case.

Following an enquiry, the competent authority, upon reviewing the records and considering the advice of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), concluded that the charges against the appellant were proved. Consequently, the appellant was penalized with a 20% permanent cut in his monthly pension and the forfeiture of his entire gratuity. His appeal before the departmental appellate authority was dismissed, and his challenge before a Single-Judge Bench of the High Court also failed, leading to the present appeal before the Division Bench.

Proceedings before High Court

The Court noticed that the criminal case against the appellant had already been discharged on technical grounds, basically for the reason that it was an incident inside the appellant's closed chamber and not in a public place, which is a requirement of the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court, however, went on to underline that the disciplinary proceedings pertained to an issue quite apart from that-the appellant's conduct in abusing and intimidating a subordinate because of his caste, coming within the compass of misconduct under service rules-and therefore, that aspect remained unadjudicated in the criminal case and as such was valid for departmental action.

One of the appellant's arguments was that the charge memo referred to “gross misconduct” rather than explicitly stating “grave misconduct,” which, he contended, rendered the invocation of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules invalid. The court rejected this argument, stating that “gross misconduct” inherently implies misconduct of a serious and grave nature. The Bench clarified that a mere terminological distinction could not be used to evade the consequences of disciplinary proceedings.

The judgment cited Supreme Court precedents in Devendra Swamy v. Karnataka SRTC (2002) and Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India (2003), reaffirming that the punishment awarded by a disciplinary authority should not be interfered with unless it is shockingly disproportionate to the charge. The Bench concluded that there was no such disproportionality in the present case.

The court categorically rejected the appellant's plea for a reduced penalty based on his past clean service record, stating, “So the plea of the counsel for the appellant about the past clean conduct of the appellant cannot be a ground to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, which was confirmed by the appellate authority and also by the learned Single Judge.”

Based on these findings, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty of a 20% cut in pension and the forfeiture of gratuity imposed on the appellant.

Case Title: Rajani Kanta Patra v. Union Of India & Ors.

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 9

Click Here To Read Judgment