Case Note & Summary
The appellant, an Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings following alleged misconduct during a deputation to the Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai. A charge memorandum under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 was issued on 07.12.2022 with four articles of charge. The appellant denied the charges, but a departmental enquiry found them proved. The disciplinary authority, by final order dated 21.05.2026, imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service with full pensionary benefits and simultaneously granted the appellant an opportunity to appeal. The appellant filed an appeal on 16.06.2026, which was pending before the Inspector General of CISF. However, before filing the appeal, the appellant had filed a writ petition challenging the final order. The writ court, by order dated 18.06.2026, directed the appellate authority to consider certain observations from an earlier writ appeal (W.A.No.1085 of 2026) and stayed the final order pending the appeal. Aggrieved by that limited relief, the appellant filed the present intra-court appeal contending that the writ court ought to have quashed the final punishment order for breach of natural justice. The respondents argued that the writ petition was premature, as a statutory appeal was pending, and any directions would prejudice the independent adjudication of the appeal. The High Court, after examining the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, held that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution is restricted to reviewing the decision-making process, not the decision itself. It emphasized that exhaustion of the alternative statutory remedy is imperative and that entertaining a writ petition during the pendency of the departmental appeal is undesirable. The Court further held that the writ court's directions requiring the appellate authority to consider observations from an earlier judgment were unnecessary and impermissible, as the appeal had to be decided independently on its own merits. Accordingly, the writ appeal was allowed, the impugned writ court order was set aside, and no costs were imposed. The appellate authority is to decide the pending appeal in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Judicial Review - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The power of judicial review in disciplinary matters is confined to examining compliance with natural justice, existence of some evidence, adherence to statutory rules, perversity in findings, and proportionality of penalty; the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over factual findings (Paras 7-8). B) Service Law - Exhaustion of Alternative Remedy - Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, Rule 36 - Filing a writ petition before exhausting the statutory departmental appeal is generally not maintainable; courts insist on completion of the appellate process to allow the appellate authority to examine all factual and legal grounds, including quantum of punishment (Para 10). C) Service Law - Pendency of Appeal - Writ Jurisdiction - The High Court should not issue directions that bind the appellate authority or require it to consider particular judicial precedents; such directions prejudice the independent decision-making required of the appellate authority and are legally unsustainable (Paras 9, 12-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a writ petition and issuing directions to the appellate authority during the pendency of a statutory departmental appeal under the CISF Rules, 2001.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is allowed; the impugned order dated 18.06.2026 passed in W.P.No.22248 of 2026 is set aside; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
Law Points
- judicial review under Article 226 is limited to process not decision
- exhaustion of alternative remedy is paramount
- High Court not to interfere during pendency of statutory appeal
- appellate authority must decide independently on merits
