Shri Mahesh Martha vs Commandant / Displinary Authority

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86375
1 WP-4419-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
th
ON THE 27 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 4419 of 2024
CNR No.: MPHC010109502024
SHRI MAHESH MARTHA
Versus
COMMANDANT / DISPLINARY AUTHORITY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harish Kunitya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shrikrishna Sharma - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 04.12.2021 passed by
respondent No.3, whereby the punishment of removal from service has been
imposed upon the petitioner pursuant to the remand order dated 05.10.2021
passed by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Central Zone Headquarters,
Bhilai.
2. Brief facts of the case in short are that the petitioner was serving as
a Constable/GD in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). Disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against him, culminating in the passing of the
final order dated 12.06.2021 by the Commandant, CISF Unit BIOM,
Bacheli, Dantewada (C.G.), whereby the punishment of removal from
service was imposed upon him. Beingn aggrieved by the said order, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHANU
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
17:07:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86375
2 WP-4419-2024
petitioner preferred an appeal before the competent appellate authority. The

Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Central Zone Headquarters, Bhilai, by
order dated 05.10.2021, set aside the earlier order of removal from service
and directed the petitioner’s reinstatement in service. The matter was
remitted to the Senior Commandant, CISF Unit SPM, Hoshangabad, Madhya
Pradesh, for passing a fresh final order, with a direction to impose the same
penalty so as to rectify the technical infirmity. The petitioner was directed to
report for duty within fifteen days of receipt of the appellate order. In
compliance of the said order, the petitioner reported at CISF Unit SPM,
Hoshangabad, on 26.11.2021 and joined service on reinstatement. Thereafter,
the Senior Commandant, by order dated 04.12.2021, passed a fresh final
order imposing the punishment of removal from service upon the petitioner.
Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original order of
removal from service dated 12.06.2021 was set aside by the appellate
authority on the ground that the order was passed by an authority not
competent to impose the penalty, having regard to the fact that the petitioner
had been appointed by an officer holding the rank of Senior Commandant. It
is contended that after setting aside the original order, the appellate authority
could not have directed the imposition of the same penalty by another
authority and the matter ought to have proceeded de novo from the stage of
issuance of a fresh charge memorandum. It is further contended that the
direction issued by the appellate authority to impose the same penalty
amounts to interference with the independent discretion of the disciplinary
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHANU
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
17:07:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86375
3 WP-4419-2024
authority and is contrary to Rule 52(2)(c) of the Central Industrial Security

Force (CISF) Rules, 2001, the corresponding provisions of Rule 27(2) of the
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and
the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness embodied in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits
that the original order of removal from service was set aside on account of a
defect concerning the competence of the authority passing the final order and
not on account of any defect in the departmental enquiry itself. The enquiry
was conducted under Rule-36 of CISF Rules, 2001 in accordance with law
and no procedural irregularity or violation of principles of natural justice
warranting a fresh enquiry was found. It is further submitted that the
appellate authority was empowered under Rule 52(2)(c) of the CISF Rules,
2001, to remit the matter to another competent authority and therefore, the
Senior Commandant considered the enquiry record and passed the fresh final
order dated 04.12.2021. The respondents, therefore, pray for dismissal of the
writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. In the present case, the counsel for respondents has specifically
pleaded that a departmental enquiry under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001,
had already been conducted and no procedural infirmity in the enquiry was
found by the appellate authority. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the
enquiry proceedings themselves stood annulled or the appellate authority had
directed that the entire enquiry be conducted afresh. Consequently, the mere
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHANU
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
17:07:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86375
4 WP-4419-2024
fact that the original penalty order was set aside does not, by itself, establish

that a de novo enquiry from the stage of issuance of a fresh charge
memorandum was legally indispensable.
7 . The petitioner has also challenged the direction of the appellate
authority to Senior Commandant to impose the same penalty upon the
petitioner, contending that the punishment to be imposed is within the
independent discretion of the competent authority. This contention requires
consideration in the light of the applicable statutory provisions.
8. Rule 52(2)(c) of the CISF Rules, 2001 reads as under:
"52. Consideration of appeals
(2) In the case of an appeal against the order
imposing any of the penalties specified in
Rule 34, or enhancing any penalty imposed
under the said rules, the appellate authority
shall consider—
(c) Whether the penalty or the enhanced
penalty imposed is excessive, or adequate, or
inadequate and pass orders—
(i) Confirming, enhancing, reducing or
setting aside the penalty; or
(ii) Remitting the case to the authority which
imposed or enhanced the penalty, or to any
other authority with such directions as it may
deem fit in the circumstances of the case."
9 . Thus, it is clear that Rule 52(2)(c) of the CISF Rules,
2001 empowers the appellate authority, while considering an appeal against
an order imposing a penalty, to confirm, enhance, reduce or set aside the
penalty, or to remit the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the
penalty or to another authority, with such directions as may be considered
appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
10. In the present matter, the respondents assert that the Senior
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHANU
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
17:07:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86375
5 WP-4419-2024
Commandant examined the enquiry report and passed the fresh final order

dated 04.12.2021. The petitioner has pointed out deficiencies in the reasons
recorded in the order, including the absence of details concerning the
appointment of the Senior Commandant as disciplinary authority and the
manner in which the enquiry record was considered. Nevertheless, a
challenge to the adequacy of the reasons must be examined in the context of
the complete disciplinary record and the applicable rules. On the material
presently placed for consideration, no specific finding has been demonstrated
that the fresh order was passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction or the
petitioner was denied an opportunity required by the applicable rules.
11. The principles governing judicial review of disciplinary
proceedings have been explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India v. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 as well as in the
case of State of Karnataka and Another Vs. N. Gangraj reported in (2020) 3
SCC 423. The Supreme Court has held that, while exercising jurisdiction
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act
as a court of appeal over the findings recorded in departmental proceedings.
Interference is warranted where, inter alia, the enquiry was conducted by an
incompetent authority, the prescribed procedure was not followed, the
principles of natural justice were violated, irrelevant considerations
influenced the decision, or the findings are perverse or unsupported by
evidence.
12. The Court is conscious that judicial review in service matters
extends to questions of jurisdiction, statutory compliance, procedural fairness
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHANU
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
17:07:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86375
6 WP-4419-2024
and arbitrariness. At the same time, the Court cannot set aside a disciplinary

order merely because another procedural course is suggested by the
delinquent employee, where the course adopted is permitted by the
applicable rules and no material illegality is established.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no sufficient
ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 04.12.2021 in exercise of
its writ jurisdiction.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit and
substance, is hereby dismissed.
15. No order as to costs.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
Shanu

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHANU
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
17:07:17