Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a constable with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), faced disciplinary proceedings arising from an incident on 27 August 1995. A statement of articles of charge alleged that he had left Mallaram Camp without prior permission, trespassed into family quarters of one Mr. Jhan Mohammed about 12 km from the camp, and indulged in unwarranted activities affecting the reputation of the Force among civilians, amounting to gross indiscipline and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union. The appellant was suspended on 28 August 1995 and denied the charges. In the inquiry, the respondents examined two witnesses and the appellant examined himself in defence. The Inquiry Officer's report dated 16 December 1997 held both charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority, the Commandant, on 17 January 1998 imposed a penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum of the pay scale under the Fifth Pay Commission for three years from 1 February 1998, with future increments withheld. On appeal, the Appellate Authority on 23 April 1998 agreed with the findings but found the penalty excessive and modified it to reduction of pay scale by one stage for two years from 1 February 1998, with the appellant not entitled to earn any increment during that period. The appellant challenged the penalty before the Delhi High Court. The Division Bench held that charge No.1 was not proved because the appellant had taken permission through an out-pass for two hours to visit a hospital. However, it found that the evidence supported charge No.2: the appellant was found 12 km away from the camp instead of the hospital, was detained by agitated civilians, and was released only after his superior officers assured departmental action. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the modified penalty was commensurate with the wrong committed. The Supreme Court heard the appellant's counsel and the Additional Solicitor General for the respondents. It noted that the appellant admitted being at the residential colony, being unable to produce documents of hospital visit, and being confined by civilians until Inspector Lakra assured a departmental inquiry. The Court agreed with the High Court that the first limb of charge No.1 was not established but the other limb read with charge No.2 was proved. It found no grievance of breach of principles of natural justice and held that the appellant, as a member of a disciplined force, did not present a fit case for exercise of discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution. The civil appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the pending interim application was disposed of.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Standard of Proof - Preponderance of Probability - Not mentioned - The Inquiry Officer held both charges proved; the High Court tested the evidence on the principle of probability and found charge No.2 proved despite charge No.1 not being proved; the Supreme Court upheld this approach. Held that in departmental proceedings, proof on preponderance of probability is sufficient and the High Court correctly applied that standard (Paras 2-4). B) Service Law - Conduct Unbecoming of Member of Armed Forces - Unwarranted Activity Affecting Reputation - Not mentioned - The appellant was issued an out-pass to visit a hospital but was found 12 km away at a residential colony, detained by agitated civilians, and released only after superiors assured departmental action; though trespass was not proved, this conduct proved charge No.2. Held that such unwarranted activity agitated civilians and affected the reputation of the Force, justifying disciplinary action (Paras 2-5). C) Constitutional Law - Article 136 - Discretionary Jurisdiction - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136 - The Supreme Court declined to exercise special leave jurisdiction in a disciplinary matter with concurrent findings, no breach of natural justice, and involving a member of a disciplined force. Held that it was not a fit case for interference under Article 136 (Para 5). D) Service Law - Proportionality of Penalty - Reduction of Pay Scale - Not mentioned - The Appellate Authority modified the penalty from reduction to minimum pay for three years to reduction of pay scale by one stage for two years with withholding of increments; the High Court found this commensurate; the Supreme Court agreed. Held that the penalty was proportionate to the misconduct (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the disciplinary penalty imposed on the appellant, a CISF constable, for unauthorized absence and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union, and whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
Civil appeal dismissed with no order as to costs; pending interim application disposed of. Supreme Court affirmed High Court's order upholding penalty as modified by Appellate Authority (reduction of pay scale by one stage for two years from 01.02.1998, with no increments during that period).
Law Points
- Disciplinary proceedings require proof on preponderance of probabilities
- not proof beyond reasonable doubt
- High Court can reappreciate evidence in departmental inquiry to determine if charges proved
- Supreme Court under Article 136 does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings in disciplinary matters
- Conduct unbecoming of a member of Armed Forces of the Union includes unwarranted activities affecting reputation of Force among civilians
- Penalty modified by Appellate Authority as commensurate with wrong committed
