C.Govindaraju vs The Director General
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:3708
WP No. 3355 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 3355 of 2022
and
WMP.Nos.3470 and 3472 of 2022
C.Govindaraju
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Director General,
Central Industrial Security Force,
Lodhi Road, CGO Complex,
New Delhi.
2. The Inspector General,
Central Industrial Security Force,
CISF South Sector Hqrs, Chennai.
Pin: 600009.
3. The Dy. Inspector General, CISF Hqrs,
Block D Rajaji Bhavan,
Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090.
4. The Senior Commandant,
Central Industrial Security Force,
Amaravathipudur, Devakottai Mani Road,
NBCC/CISF (Camp)
Sivagangai, Tamil Nadu
Pin: 630301.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records and quash the
order passed by the second respondent dated 10.11.2021 through its Letter
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )
2026:MHC:3708
WP No. 3355 of 2022
No.V-15016/ CISF/ SS/ L&R / CG / Rev/2021 / 14774 confirming the order of
the third respondent vide appellate order No.V-15014(1)/ Appeal-02/CG-4thRB
/(S) / SZ-1 / L&R/2021-2081 dated 17.03.2021 and the order of the fourth
respondent in Letter V-15014/CISF/4th RB (S)/MAJ-36/DISC/CG/2020/1994
dated 31.12.2020 ie., “Reduction of pay by two stages from Rs.37,500/- to
Rs.35,300/- in the pay matrix level-4 for a period of two years it is further
directed that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction
and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of
postponing his future increment of pay” with immediate effect and further direct
the respondents to pay the deducted amount Rs.2200/- per month from the
salary of the petitioner with effect from January 2021 to till the disposal of this
Writ Petition.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Prakash Paul
For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Ashok Kumar.
Central Government Standing Counsel
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned
punishment order passed by the fourth respondent, vide order dated 31.12.2020,
and the consequential orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the
Revisional Authority, vide orders dated 17.03.2021 and 10.11.2021,
respectively.
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )
2026:MHC:3708
WP No. 3355 of 2022
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
joined the Security Force on 15.07.1996 and is presently working at FACT
Udyogamandal, Kochi, Kerala. It is the further submission of the learned
counsel that the impugned disciplinary proceedings were initiated while the
petitioner was working at the Family Welfare Centre, CISF Unit,
Amaravathiputhur, Sivaganga District. He would further submit that the charges
are self-serving and that the witnesses are not independent witnesses, and that
have implicated the petitioner with an ulterior motive. The learned counsel
would further submit that, if there is any disrespectful conduct on the part of a
subordinate officer, it is the duty of the Reporting Officer to make an entry in
the General Diary. In the present case, no entry was made in the General Diary
in respect of the alleged delinquency of the petitioner. According to him, the
charge was framed only on the basis of the fabricated special report.
2.1. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the so-called admission letter was not given by the petitioner. However, his
signature was obtained in the said letter during the enquiry proceedings. It is the
further submission of the learned counsel that the translated version of the
telephone conversation between the petitioner and one Yasoob was not
furnished to him. Therefore, contended that the very enquiry become vitiated.
Hence, he prayed for interference with the findings rendered by the Disciplinary
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )
2026:MHC:3708
WP No. 3355 of 2022
Authority. As an alternative submission, he would submit that the punishment
imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges framed. Hence, he
prayed to interfere with the impugned orders.
3. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned
Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents and would contend
that, during the course of the preliminary enquiry, the charged officer did not
raise any such objection. He would further submit that, pursuant to the request
made by the petitioner, the original Enquiry Officer, namely, Alok Kumar Rai,
was subsequently changed and one N. Desingu Rajan was appointed as the
Enquiry Officer. It is also the contention of the learned Central Government
Standing Counsel that the petitioner had been involved in nine delinquencies in
the past and, on all those occasions, he had dealt with leniently. In view of his
continuous and incorrigible conduct, the petitioner cannot claim any further
leniency before this Court.
3.1. It is also the contention of the learned Central Government Standing
Counsel that the findings rendered by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the
Appellate Authority cannot be lightly interfered with while exercising the power
of judicial review, unless such findings are perverse or are without any basis.
He would further submit that, in the present case, the findings rendered by the
Enquiry Officer and relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority are probable
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )
2026:MHC:3708
WP No. 3355 of 2022
findings. Therefore, the question of interference with the findings of the
Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority does not arise. He would
also submit that, considering the past misconduct of the petitioner on more than
nine occasions, which was also brought to his notice at the time of framing of
the charges, he does not deserve any leniency before this Court. Hence, he
prayed to dismiss of the present Writ Petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side.
5. On perusal of the charge, it is seen that the petitioner was charged for
intimidating one Yasoob, who had been arrayed as one of the witness. The
learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, on a reading of the charge,
the same does not disclose any act of intimidation. However, this Court is
unable to agree with the said submission. According to the charge, the petitioner
had attempted to interfere with the domestic enquiry by influencing the
witnesses who was relied upon by the Department. Therefore, the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that Article of Charge No.I does not
disclose any misconduct cannot be accepted at all.
6. Coming to Article of Charge No.II, the main contention put forth by
the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, though such allegations had been
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )
2026:MHC:3708
WP No. 3355 of 2022
made against the petitioner, no entry was made in the General Diary. In the
absence of any such entry in the General Diary, the learned counsel would
contend that the special report is nothing but a fabricated and self-serving
document and, therefore, cannot be relied upon. In this regard, it is relevant to
state that, while exercising the power of judicial review, the power of this Court
is very limited. This Court is required to examine whether the findings rendered
by the Disciplinary Authority are based upon the materials available on record
and whether such findings are probable and reasonable.
7. In the present case, the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that there was no entry in the General Diary. However, when this
Court put a specific question to the petitioner as to whether such a defence had
been raised during the enquiry, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not in
a position to demonstrate the raising of such objection during the enquiry. If that
being the case, considering the fact that there exist a special report, though the
said report is undated, the reliance of the report by the Disciplinary Authority,
the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority cannot be faulted. Further,
this Court, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot substitute its
own finding merely because of the existence of an alternative view.
8. As already stated, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner
would only lead to an alternative finding and would not render the findings of
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )
2026:MHC:3708
WP No. 3355 of 2022
the Disciplinary Authority become perverse. Therefore, though the contention
of the petitioner may constitute a possible or probable view, when the findings
rendered by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are equally
probable and reasonable findings, the question of interference in such factual
finding is contrary to law. Therefore, the second submission regarding the
absence of general diary also does not merit acceptance.
9. Lastly, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the
respondents relied upon the past conduct of the petitioner through the counter
affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner had used provocative words in the
Kannada language against the wife of one Head Constable. He had also been
imposed with a fine equivalent to three days’ pay, vide final order dated
03.10.2007, for wearing a shabby uniform. He was also imposed with a fine for
his failure to pay proper compliments to the Inspector General, CISF, during the
year 2008. Further, the petitioner was imposed with a fine for his failure to pay
compliments to the Commandant and the Chairman of CPT, Cochin, and for not
wearing a cap while in uniform. He was also imposed with a fine for threatening
his superiors without any provocation. He was censured for his failure to vacate
the family accommodation and was also imposed with punishment for his
delinquency in arguing with the GDMO and misleading higher officials.
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )
2026:MHC:3708
WP No. 3355 of 2022
10. Therefore, from the above narration of the learned Central
Government Standing Counsel, it is evident that the petitioner had suffered
punishment on nine previous occasions. The present case also relates to his
failure to pay proper compliments to his superior officers and an attempt to
influence the witnesses in the domestic enquiry. At the first blush, the
punishment imposed may appear to be disproportionate. However, considering
the past conduct of the petitioner, which was also brought to his notice by way
of the Articles of Charge, this Court does not find any disproportionality in the
punishment imposed.
11. It is well-settled principle of law that, while adjudicating upon the
quantum of punishment, the Writ Court should not normally interfere with the
punishment imposed, unless such punishment is shockingly disproportionate to
the gravity of the charges. In the present case, considering the fact that the
petitioner had suffered punishment on nine previous occasions and that such
past conduct was also brought to his notice by way of the Articles of Charge,
this Court does not find any disproportionality in the punishment imposed.
Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present Writ Petition.
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )
2026:MHC:3708
WP No. 3355 of 2022
12. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
03-09-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KV
To
The Director General,
Central Industrial Security Force,
Lodhi Road, CGO Complex,
New Delhi.
2. The Inspector General,
Central Industrial Security Force,
CISF South Sector Hqrs, Chennai.
Pin: 600009.
3. The Dy. Inspector General, CISF Hqrs,
Block D Rajaji Bhavan,
Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090.
4. The Senior Commandant,
Central Industrial Security Force,
Amaravathipudur, Devakottai Mani Road,
NBCC/CISF (Camp)
Sivagangai, Tamil Nadu
Pin: 630301.
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )
2026:MHC:3708
WP No. 3355 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
WP No. 3355 of 2022
03-09-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2026 03:41:47 pm )