Ex-parte dismissal for bigamy and desertion upheld where delinquent officer fails to participate in departmental proceedings.

The Petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the CISF (Chennai Unit), was removed from service following a departmental enquiry initiated via a Charge Memorandum dated 14.12.2023.

The charges against her were: (i) entering into a bigamous marriage with one Yogesh Kumar in violation of Rule 18(a) of the CISF Rules, 2001; (ii) deserting her duty station and being Absent Without Leave (AWL) since 09.07.2023; and (iii) making false claims regarding an application for Extra Ordinary Leave.

An ex-parte punishment order was passed on 08.08.2024 after the Petitioner failed to participate in the enquiry.

Her subsequent appeals to the Appellate Authority (04.12.2024) and Revisional Authority (03.06.2025) were dismissed.

The Petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court alleging violation of natural justice and bias.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by a lack of neutrality or bias due to the appointment of an Enquiry Officer from the same unit as the Petitioner.

2. Whether the ex-parte punishment order and subsequent appellate/revisional orders violated the principles of natural justice.

3. Whether the High Court, under Article 226, can reappreciate evidence to substitute the factual findings of the Disciplinary Authority.

The Court primarily applied Article 226 of the Constitution regarding the limited scope of judicial review, noting it cannot act as a court of appeal or re-evaluate evidence.

It relied on the precedent Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (1963), which established that judicial review is restricted to the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision.

Procedurally, the Court applied Rule 36 and Rule 18(a) of the CISF Rules, 2001, noting that Rule 36(2) does not prohibit appointing an Enquiry Officer from the same unit.

The Court applied the standard of "preponderance of probability" as the requisite threshold for proof in departmental enquiries.

The Court found the Petitioner's claim of bias unsubstantiated, as the CISF Rules do not bar an Enquiry Officer from the same unit, and the Petitioner offered no evidence of actual prejudice.

Regarding the violation of natural justice, the Court observed that the Petitioner "deliberately absented herself" from proceedings despite receiving call-up notices and ample opportunities to cross-examine witnesses.

The Court noted that the department examined 16 witnesses and produced documentary evidence (Articles/Aadhar cards/photographs) to prove the bigamous marriage and unauthorized absence, satisfying the "preponderance of probability" standard.

Since the decision-making process was followed and the findings were based on cogent evidence, the Court held it could not interfere with the factual conclusions of the authorities.

It held that the punishment of "removal from service" was based on proved charges of gross misconduct and did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction.

The Court affirmed that the Petitioner could not claim a violation of natural justice when she willfully chose not to participate in the enquiry.

All pending applications were disposed of.