Major penalty for accidental weapon discharge causing no harm is shockingly disproportionate.

The petitioner, a CISF Constable appointed on 5 April 1991, was on night duty at the BHEL Unit, Bhopal, on 15/16 November 2010.

While inspecting an INSAS rifle issued to him before commencing duty, one live round was accidentally fired and struck the ceiling of the Kote verandah. No person was injured and no property was damaged; the incident was recorded in the General Diary.

The department initially treated the incident as accidental and ordered recovery of ₹18 towards the cost of the fired cartridge, which the petitioner deposited.

Subsequently, a charge memorandum was issued alleging gross negligence, careless handling of arms and violation of lawful orders.

After a departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charge proved, concluding that the petitioner had deliberately inserted a loaded magazine and operated the trigger.

The Disciplinary Authority imposed reduction of pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect, thereby postponing future increments, under order dated 21 January 2011. His appeal and revision were dismissed on 14 April 2011 and 16 September 2011, respectively.

The petitioner challenged all three orders under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authorities that the petitioner’s conduct amounted to gross negligence or deliberate misuse of the weapon were perverse and unsupported by the evidence.

2. Whether the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities violated the principles of natural justice by failing to properly consider the petitioner’s defence and mitigating circumstances.

3. Whether reduction of pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect, being a major penalty under Rule 34(v) of the CISF Rules, 2001, was disproportionate to an accidental firing that caused no injury or damage.

The Court exercised limited judicial review under Article 226 over departmental disciplinary proceedings, while recognising that interference is permissible where findings are based on no evidence, the Enquiry Officer fails to apply his mind to the defence, or no reasonable person could have reached the conclusion arrived at by the authorities.

Relying on Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer, (1985) 3 SCC 379, B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, Degala Suryanarayana (1999) 5 SCC 762, and Ravi Saxena v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 4767 of 2018, decided on 24 March 2023, the Court held that an enquiry report must be reasoned and cannot be based on mere ipse dixit.

Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 2001 classifies reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay with postponement of future increments as a major penalty under Rule 34(v), while lesser forms of reduction and other penalties are classified as minor penalties.

The Court further applied the doctrine of proportionality, requiring punishment to be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and the surrounding mitigating circumstances.

The Court found that the Enquiry Officer’s conclusion that the petitioner deliberately inserted a loaded magazine and pulled the trigger was inconsistent with the evidence.

The prosecution witnesses, including the co-duty personnel, supported the petitioner’s account that the firing occurred while he was inspecting the weapon, struck only the ceiling and caused no injury, death or property damage.

The finding of deliberate conduct therefore lacked evidentiary basis and was perverse.

The Court also noted that the department had initially described the incident as an “accidental firing” and recovered only the cost of the cartridge, making the subsequent imposition of a cumulative major penalty particularly disproportionate.

The authorities failed to meaningfully consider the petitioner’s prolonged duty hours, family medical circumstances, financial stress and the absence of any actual harm.

Although weapon discipline in a paramilitary force was acknowledged to be important, the Court held that the circumstances warranted a corrective minor penalty rather than a punishment permanently affecting future increments and career progression.

The disciplinary order dated 21 January 2011, appellate order dated 14 April 2011 and revisional order dated 16 September 2011 were quashed.

The matter was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment afresh, with directions that any fresh punishment must be confined to a minor penalty and not a major penalty.

The respondents were directed to calculate and extend consequential service benefits, including restoration of pay, increments and arrears withheld under the quashed orders, within 90 days of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.