Disciplinary authorities cannot impose penalties solely on untested preliminary-enquiry statements amid material contradictions.

The petitioner, a CISF Inspector/Executive serving as Company Commander and Night Checking Officer at CISF Unit, OIL Duliajan, was proceeded against in relation to an attempted theft at the STF Madhuban outpost during the intervening night of 23–24 July 2021.

He was alleged to have failed to take necessary action, directed the Post Commander not to make a General Diary entry, and suppressed the incident from the Sector Commander.

After the petitioner’s initial explanation was found unsatisfactory, a minor-penalty proceeding was initiated under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001, through a memorandum dated 6 October 2021.

The petitioner sought copies of the enquiry materials and related documents to submit an effective representation.

He submitted his representation on 15 October 2021, the last date of the prescribed period, and was furnished the Preliminary Enquiry Report on the same day without any further opportunity being granted to respond to it.

The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of reduction of three days’ pay by order dated 3 November 2021.

The petitioner’s appeal dated 18 January 2022 was rejected, and his revision petition was dismissed by order dated 24 May 2023.

The petitioner consequently invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court.

Whether the charges of negligence, dereliction of duty, suppression of the incident, and directing the Post Commander not to make a General Diary entry were established on the basis of the Preliminary Enquiry Report and statements recorded therein?

Whether the Disciplinary Authority could rely upon statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry, particularly in the face of contradictory statements, without holding a regular enquiry and permitting the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses?

Whether failure to furnish the requested enquiry materials before expiry of the time for representation caused prejudice to the petitioner and violated the requirements of a fair disciplinary process?

The proceeding was initiated under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001, governing the procedure for imposition of minor penalties.

Although a minor-penalty proceeding may not ordinarily require a full regular enquiry, disputed and contradictory factual allegations cannot be conclusively established merely through statements recorded in a preliminary enquiry, where the delinquent employee had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.

The principles of natural justice require that the employee be furnished relevant materials relied upon for the charges and be afforded a meaningful opportunity to submit an effective defence; failure to provide such materials within the prescribed representation period constitutes prejudice.

The Court found that Charge I was not substantiated because the materials showed that the petitioner had proceeded to the place of occurrence, conducted area checking with the QRT personnel, and ensured that the incident was recorded in the Night Checking Register.

The incident had also been communicated to the Force Control Room.

As to Charge II, the allegation that the petitioner prevented the Post Commander from making a General Diary entry rested substantially on the Post Commander’s statement, which contradicted the petitioner’s account.

Since that statement was recorded during the preliminary enquiry without cross-examination, it could not be treated as conclusively proved.

The Disciplinary Authority also failed to consider the petitioner’s explanation that, because the incident occurred late at night and caused no injury or property loss, he recorded it in the Night Checking Register rather than immediately informing the superior officer.

Further, the Preliminary Enquiry Report was supplied only on the final day for submitting the representation, and no additional time or express opportunity to respond was granted.

The Court therefore held that the petitioner was prejudiced in preparing his defence.

The Disciplinary Authority acted impermissibly in treating untested preliminary-enquiry statements as proof of the charges without conducting a regular enquiry or allowing cross-examination, and the petitioner was denied a meaningful opportunity to respond to the enquiry materials.

Accordingly, the penalty order dated 3 November 2021 and the consequential orders affirming the penalty, including the revision order dated 24 May 2023, were set aside.

Any adverse service-record entry based on the penalty was also directed to be removed.

The respondents were directed to refund the three days’ pay withheld from the petitioner within one month of receiving the certified copy of the judgment.