Facts
The petitioner, a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) appointed in 1994, was accused of assaulting his Company Commander with a lathi on 05.09.2011 after a dispute regarding duty deployment
Source reference: p.3, 7He was suspended and a departmental inquiry was initiated under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001
Source reference: p.8The petitioner refused to accept the charge memo personally, leading the authorities to paste it on his residence in the presence of local panchayat members
Source reference: p.8-9The inquiry proceeded ex-parte as the petitioner remained absent, claiming mental illness and treatment at RINPAS, Ranchi
Source reference: p.6, 9On 23.05.2012, based on the inquiry report finding the allegations true, the petitioner was removed from service
Source reference: p.10His subsequent statutory appeal and revision petition were rejected
Source reference: p.10The petitioner challenged these orders via a writ petition, alleging violation of natural justice and failure to consider his mental health status
Source reference: p.11-12Issues
1. Whether the departmental proceedings and the subsequent order of removal from service were vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice due to being conducted ex-parte.
Source reference: p.12 / para. 92. Whether the disciplinary authority failed to consider the petitioner's plea of mental disorder during the period of the alleged occurrence and the inquiry.
Source reference: p.11 / para. 8Law Applied
Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001, which governs the procedure for imposing major penalties and requires serving a charge memo and providing an opportunity for defense
Source reference: p.8, 11Principle of "Valid Service" regarding notices pasted at a residence when a witness deliberately avoids service
Source reference: p.16Applicability of Anirudh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India, which discusses the proportionality of punishment and qualifying service for pension in disciplined forces
Source reference: p.13Reasoning
The Court scrutinized the original departmental records and found that the authorities made multiple attempts to serve the charge memo, which the petitioner refused
Source reference: p.15-16The Court noted that notices sent via registered post were either refused or unserved, and eventually, the "pasting" of the notice at his door in the presence of the Sarpanch and Ward Member constituted valid service under the circumstances
Source reference: p.16Regarding the plea of mental illness, the Court observed that though the petitioner visited the Out-Patient Department (OPD) at RINPAS, he was never admitted and had previously been declared fit for duty
Source reference: p.17-18The Court found that his ability to file an appeal immediately after the removal order proved he was not incapacitated and was "deliberately avoiding" the proceedings
Source reference: p.18The Court emphasized that in a "disciplined force" like the CISF, assaulting a superior officer is a grave act of indiscipline that warrants severe punishment
Source reference: p.18Holding
The Court answered both issues in the negative, holding that the departmental inquiry was conducted fairly following due process and that the petitioner’s mental health claims did not exempt him from the consequences of his misconduct
The Court concluded that the service of notice was legally sufficient and the petitioner's absence was a deliberate attempt to frustrate the inquiry; the writ petition was dismissed, affirming the orders of removal from service passed by the Disciplinary, Appellate, and Revisional authorities
Source reference: p.18Original Court PDF
Achhey Lal Paswan ConstablevsThe Union Of India and Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in