N.P. Diwivedi vs Union Of India

1 WP-2511-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
th
ON THE 25 OF AUGUST, 2026
WRIT PETITION No.2511 of 2012
N. P. Dwivedi
Versus
Union of India & Others
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Utkarsh Agrawal and Shri Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi - Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri Shrikrishna Sharma- Advocate for the respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 06.08.2026
Delivered on : 25.08.2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the order of
punishment dated 21.01.2011 (Annexure P/1), whereby, a penalty of reduction
in pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect has been
imposed upon him thereby, postponing future increments. The petitioner is
further challenging orders dated 14.04.2011 (Annexure P/2) and order dated

2 WP-2511-2012
16.09.2011 (Annexure P/3); whereby, the appeal and revision preferred by the
petitioner, respectively has also been dismissed.
2. The factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner was appointed
as a Constable in the CISF on 05.04.1991 and was posted at the BHEL Unit,
Bhopal. On the intervening night of 15/16.11.2010, the petitioner was on night
shift from 18:00 hrs to 06:00 hrs. At approximately 17:15 hrs, while reporting
for duty, he drew an INSAS 5.56 mm Rifle bearing Butt No. 81, Registration
No. 18074643 and 100 live rounds from the Unit Kote. While he was
inspecting the weapon in the Kote verandah, one round was accidentally fired,
hitting the ceiling of the verandah. It is an undisputed fact that the bullet did
not cause any loss of life, bodily injury or damage to property. This incident
was recorded in the General Diary as Entry No. 562 at 18:40 hrs.
3. Following the incident, the petitioner was immediately placed under
suspension vide order dated 15.11.2010. Interestingly, the department treated
the matter as an accident initially, as evidenced by an order dated 30.11.2010
(Annexure P/12), which directed the recovery of Rs. 18/- from the petitioner
as the penal cost of the fired cartridge due to accidental firing. The petitioner
promptly deposited the amount into the Government Treasury via a Challan
dated 10.12.2010 (Annexure P/13). A formal Memorandum of Charge was
subsequently issued to the petitioner on 20.11.2010, amended on 25.11.2010
(Annexures P/5), under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force

3 WP-2511-2012
Rules, 2001 (CISF Rules, 2001). The charges levelled against the petitioner
were that of gross negligence, careless handling of arms and violation of
lawful orders. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply (Annexure P/6),
asserting that the firing was a bonafide mistake. Subsequently, respondent No.
5 was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner requested certain
documents vide Representation dated 04.12.2010 (Annexure P/8), which the
respondents rejected as irrelevant vide Communication dated 13.12.2010
(Annexure P/9).
4. The Enquiry Officer conducted the proceedings wherein ten prosecution
witnesses (PW-1 to PW-10) were examined. As per the Enquiry Report
(Annexure P/14), the co-duty personnel corroborated the sequence of events
and affirmed that no harm occurred. Nevertheless, the Enquiry Officer
concluded that the petitioner deliberately inserted a loaded magazine and
operated the trigger, finding the charge of gross negligence fully proved.
5. The Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order dated 21.01.2011
(Annexure P/1), imposing a penalty of reduction in pay by two stages from
Rs. 8770/- to Rs. 8120/- in the time scale of pay for two years with the specific
direction that he will not earn increments during this period and the reduction
will have the effect of postponing future increments. The petitioner’s statutory
appeal was dismissed on 14.04.2011 and his revision petition was dismissed
on 16.09.2011.

4 WP-2511-2012
6. Shri Utkarsh Agrawal, Ld. counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued
that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate and the enquiry
proceedings violated the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the
firing was completely accidental. The departmental witnesses substantiated
that there was no malicious intent nor was there any injury or property
damage. The petitioner placed on record a CISF Circular dated 16.12.2009
(Annexure P/10) which strictly prohibits continuous 12 hour duty
deployments. In light of this Circular, it is submitted by Ld. counsel that the
petitioner was forced to work 12 to 14 hour shifts, leading to extreme mental
and physical exhaustion. The petitioner produced medical certificates
(Annexure P/11) proving that his father was undergoing treatment for
advanced cancer at Jawaharlal Nehru Cancer Hospital and his daughter suffers
from a 40% permanent physical disability. It is submitted that combined with
the financial stress of a housing loan deadline, the petitioner was under severe
emotional distress. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the authorities
failed to adopt a pragmatic or humanitarian approach to these facts.
Furthermore, it is brought to notice that the department had already recovered
the sum of Rs. 18/- for the cartridge, treating it as an accident, hence, the
impugned penalty permanently impacts the petitioner’s future increments,
Assured Career Progression and promotions as for a minor, unintended human
error, a major penalty has been imposed.

5 WP-2511-2012
7. Per contra , Ld. counsel for the respondents supported the impugned
orders and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. It is submitted by Ld.
Counsel that the CISF is a paramilitary force where weapons are issued for the
protection of life and property. Firing a weapon without reason by an
experienced personnel with 20 years of service is a grave offense that reflects
highly casual conduct and gross negligence. It is further argued that the
petitioner’s service record is only average and previously, the petitioner has
been awarded two minor punishments, one for sleeping on duty in 1996 and
another for unauthorized absence in 1999/2000.
8. It is submitted that the departmental enquiry was conducted strictly per
the CISF Rules. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to cross-examine
witnesses and defend himself. Under Section 15 of the CISF Act, 1968,
members of the force are always on duty. The 12 hour shifts were an
operational necessity because 128 personnel of the unit had been deployed for
election duties in Bihar and Jharkhand, causing an acute manpower shortage.
The respondents argue that if the petitioner was under such severe mental
stress, he should have informed his superiors before drawing a weapon.
Furthermore, the fact that he was executing a Rs. 7 lakh property transaction
indicates he was mentally sound. Lastly, it is submitted by him that the
Disciplinary Authority could have dismissed or removed the petitioner from
service but opted to take a lenient view by imposing a lesser penalty.

6 WP-2511-2012
9. Heard the respective counsel and perused the record.
10. The primary issue before this Court is whether the imposition of a
major penalty is legally sustainable and proportionate for an accidental firing
that caused no harm, especially when viewed against the backdrop of
compelling mitigating circumstances.
11. While this Court is mindful that in matters of discipline within
armed/paramilitary forces, the scope of judicial review under Article 226 is
circumscribed, it is not entirely excluded. The parameters of judicial
interference in departmental proceedings were extensively discussed by a
coordinate bench of this Court in Ravi Saxena v. State of M.P. , W.P. No.
4767 of 2018 , decided on 24.03.2023. Relying upon a catena of Hon’ble
Supreme Court judgments including Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer , (1985)
3 SCC 379 ; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 and
Degala Suryanarayana (1999) 5 SCC 762 , this Court held that while courts
do not re-appreciate evidence like an appellate body, they are duty-bound to
interfere if, (i) the conclusion of the disciplinary authority is based on no
evidence; (ii) if the Enquiry Officer failed to apply their mind to the defense,
or (iii) if the findings are such that no reasonable person acting objectively
could have arrived at them. An enquiry report cannot merely be the ipse dixit
of the Enquiry Officer; it must be a reasoned order. Furthermore, departmental

7 WP-2511-2012
proceedings cannot be treated as a casual exercise conducted with a closed
mind.
12. Applying the principles elucidated in Ravi Saxena (supra) to the
factual matrix of the present case, several glaring infirmities emerge in the
decision-making process of the respondents. The Enquiry Officer concluded
that the petitioner deliberately inserted a loaded magazine and pulled the
trigger. However, as admitted by the prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-10)
during the enquiry, the incident was an accidental fire and a bona fide mistake.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the subjective conclusion of
deliberate defiance or willful sabotage. To elevate an unintended accident to
the level of deliberate gross negligence is legally perverse, akin to flawed
findings and is liable to be struck down.
13. The department initially recognized the nature of the event by issuing
a recovery order for Rs. 18/- (Annexure P/12) which explicitly used the phrase
accidental firing. Having monetarily penalized the petitioner for the lost
cartridge, utilizing the same incident to impose a major penalty with
permanent, cumulative financial repercussions demonstrates a vindictive and
disproportionate approach.
14. A defining feature of this case is the evidence adduced during the
departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer examined ten prosecution
witnesses (PW-1 to PW-10). PW-1 (Inspector Ajit Singh) confirmed that 99

8 WP-2511-2012
live rounds and 1 empty cartridge were accounted for after the incident. PW-
2 (Sub-Inspector Chowba Ram), the Shift In-charge, testified that the gunshot
occurred while the petitioner was routinely checking his issued weapon. PW-
5 to PW-10 (Co-duty personnel) unanimously provided eyewitness accounts
corroborating that the firing occurred during inspection, hit the ceiling and
absolutely no loss of life, bodily injury or property damage transpired. Despite
the unanimous testimony of the prosecution’s own witnesses that the firing
was an accident, the Enquiry Officer rejected all mitigating defenses. The
Enquiry Officer bizarrely deduced that because the petitioner executed a real
estate transaction, he was mentally sound and therefore, the handling of the
weapon was a deliberate breach of safety rules amounting to gross negligence.
To elevate an unintended accident corroborated as such by every eyewitness
to the level of deliberate gross negligence is a legally perverse finding that
flies in the face of the evidence on record.
15. To appreciate the proportionality of the punishment, it is imperative to
examine the statutory rules governing penalties. Rule 34 of the CISF Rules,
2001 categorizes penalties into Major and Minor. Rule 34 is reproduced
verbatim below:
“34. Nature of penalties. - The following penalties may, for good
and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed
on an enrolled member of the Force, namely:--
Major penalties-:

9 WP-2511-2012
(i) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a
disqualification for future employment under the
Government;
(ii) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification
for future employment under the Government;

(iii) compulsory retirement;
(iv) reduction to lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service
for a period to be specified in the order of penalty, which
shall be a bar to the promotion of the enrolled member of
the Force during such specified period to the time scale of
pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced,
with direction as to whether or not, on promotion on the
expiry of the said specified period-
(a) the period of reduction to time-scale of pay, grade, post
or service shall operate to postpone future increments
of his pay, and if so, to what extent; and
(b) the enrolled member of the Force shall regain his
original seniority in the higher time scale of pay, grade,
post or service.
(v) save as provided for in clause (viii) below, reduction to a
lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period
with further directions as to whether or not the enrolled
member will earn increments of pay during the period of
such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period,
the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future
increments of his pay.
Minor penalties-:-
(vi) censure;
(vii) withholding of his promotion;
(viii) reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one
stage for a period not exceeding three years, without
cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension;
(ix) withholding of increment of pay;

10 WP-2511-2012
(x) fine to any amount not exceeding of 7 days' pay.”
16. A bare reading of the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 (Annexure P/1)
demonstrates that the petitioner’s pay was reduced by two stages for a period
of two years, with the specific direction that the reduction will have a
cumulative effect of postponing his future increments. This punishment
squarely falls under Clause (v), which is explicitly categorized as a Major
Penalty.
17. At this juncture, it is imperative to address why the imposition of a
major penalty in the peculiar unique facts and circumstances of this case is
wholly unwarranted and shocks the conscience of this Court. The doctrine of
proportionality dictates that the sledgehammer of a major penalty should not
be used to crack the nut of a bona fide human error. When the act complained
of is a pure accident and not a deliberate, malicious or willfully insubordinate
act and where absolutely no harm, loss of life or property damage has been
occasioned, the imposition of a major penalty such as a cumulative reduction
in pay that permanently stunts petitioner’s financial and promotional avenues
is shockingly disproportionate. In cases of accidental firing devoid of
casualties, the objective of the disciplinary authority should be corrective and
redressive, rather than vindictive. The authorities entirely failed to appreciate
that the department itself had initially treated the event as a minor lapse by
recovering the Rs. 18/- penal cost of the cartridge, explicitly terming it an

11 WP-2511-2012
accidental firing. Furthermore, the authorities turned a blind eye to compelling
mitigating circumstances. By completely disregarding these facts, the
disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities acted with a closed mind.
18. Therefore, while maintaining that weapon discipline in a paramilitary
force is undeniably vital, ruining a personnel’s career over a harmless accident
is arbitrary. The punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the
misconduct and in the present case, a minor, redressive punishment would
have squarely met the ends of justice.
19. In light of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the findings of the Disciplinary, Appellate and Revisional Authorities
suffer from perversity, a total non-application of mind to the mitigating
circumstances and violate the doctrine of proportionality. The imposition of a
Major Penalty for an admitted accidental error causing no harm is legally
unsustainable.
20. Accordingly, the impugned Disciplinary Order dated 21.01.2011
(Annexure P/1), the Appellate Order dated 14.04.2011 (Annexure P/2) and the
Revisional Order dated 16.09.2011 (Annexure P/3) are hereby set aside and
quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to
reconsider the quantum of punishment afresh. The Disciplinary Authority is
directed to take into account the mitigating factors existing in the present case.
The Disciplinary Authority shall be at liberty to pass a fresh punishment order

12 WP-2511-2012
against the petitioner but that should be limited to some minor punishment and
not a major punishment. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed and
consequential service benefits including the restoration of pay scales,
increments and arrears withheld due to the quashed orders shall be calculated
and extended to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
21. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.
22. There shall be no order as to costs.

(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Date: 2026.08.31 12:16:55 +05'30'