- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
S.K Giri v. Home Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal was directed against the judgment and order dated 11-11-1986 of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the appellant’s writ petition challenging his removal from service.
The appellant was appointed as a security guard in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on 16-12-1970 and promoted as Head Constable in September 1981. In January 1983, he was posted as Head Security Guard in the CISF Unit at Rourkela Steel Plant. On 25-1-1983, while on duty in the ‘B’ shift at ‘C’ post (N.R. Gate) along with another security guard, about 109 persons allegedly entered the Plant around 7.45 p.m. and were found removing coal from the M.C.D. area, which was the appellant’s duty point. Crime Branch staff seized 45 gunny bags filled with coal from the intruders.
It was alleged that at the relevant time the appellant was absent from his duty point and that he came to the duty point about 25 minutes after the incident. He was charge-sheeted for misconduct and gross negligence of duty and a departmental inquiry was held. The appellant’s explanation was that the duty area was a jungle with thick bushes; that the intruders were large in number; and that he and the guard with him were unarmed, so he directed the security guard to keep watch and himself went to the nearest telephone to report the incident to the Shift Incharge and the control room, after which the criminals were apprehended and coal seized.
The inquiry officer found him guilty, and the disciplinary authority, after considering the inquiry findings, imposed the penalty of removal from service with effect from 24-4-1984. The appellant’s departmental appeal was dismissed on 13-9-1984. His subsequent writ petition before the Delhi High Court was dismissed, leading to the present appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant’s removal from service, based on the finding of absence from duty and gross negligence/misconduct, was justified on the facts found in the departmental inquiry.
- Whether the punishment of removal from service was severe and disproportionate to the charge, warranting interference.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant contended he was not absent from duty; he had gone briefly to convey a message and report the incident to higher authorities.
- Such short absence for reporting to superiors could not be treated as “absence from duty.”
- The punishment of removal from service was too harsh and disproportionate to the charge.
- He sought leniency on the basis of a clean and unblemished service record since 1970.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
After hearing counsel for the parties, the Court concluded that the punishment awarded to the appellant was “no doubt severe and disproportionate” and therefore deserved to be set aside. On that basis, the Court interfered with both the disciplinary penalty of removal and the High Court’s order that had declined to grant relief.
The Court’s relief was structured to reinstate the appellant while limiting monetary consequences for the period following removal: it directed reinstatement with immediate effect, denied arrears of salary from 24-4-1984 up to 31-12-1994, and granted salary and other benefits from 1-1-1995. It further directed that the period from 24-4-1984 until reinstatement be treated as continuous service, and required the respondents to refix the appellant’s salary.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED (IN PART): The Court set aside the order of removal dated 23-4-1984 and the impugned Delhi High Court order, and directed reinstatement with immediate effect.
The appellant was not entitled to arrears of salary from 24-4-1984 to 31-12-1994, but was entitled to salary and all other benefits from 1-1-1995. The period from 24-4-1984 to the date of reinstatement was directed to be treated as continuous service, and the respondents were directed to refix salary. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs. The opinion does not indicate any broader implications or that it set any new precedent beyond granting relief on proportionality in this case.
Faizan Uddin, J.— Heard counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 11-11-1986, passed by the Delhi High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of his removal from service.
4. The appellant was appointed as security guard on 16-12-1970 in the Central Industrial Security Force. He was promoted as Head Constable in September 1981. In January 1983 the appellant was posted as Head Security Guard in the C.I.S.F Unit Rourkela Steel Plant. On 25-1-1983 when the appellant was on duty in ‘B’ shift (from 1.00 p.m to 9.00 p.m) at ‘C’ post in the area known as N.R Gate along with a security guard, a large number of persons totalling about 109 entered inside the Plant at about 7.45 p.m and were found removing coal from the M.C.D area which was the duty point of the appellant. The Crime Branch Staff seized 45 gunny bags filled with coal from the said intruders. It was alleged that at that point of time the appellant was found absent from his duty and he came to his duty point about 25 minutes after the aforesaid incident. Consequently, the appellant was charge-sheeted for misconduct and gross negligence of duty and an inquiry against him was held. In the inquiry the appellant took the stand that the duty area was a jungle area with thick bushes and since a large number of persons had entered the Plant and the appellant and the security guard with him were unarmed and, therefore, he asked the security guard to keep an eye on the situation and he himself rushed to the nearest telephone wherefrom he reported the incident to the Shift Incharge and the control room whereafter the criminals were apprehended and the coal was seized from them. However, the inquiry officer found the appellant guilty of the said charge in pursuance of which the disciplinary authority after considering the findings of the inquiry officer awarded the penalty of removal from service with effect from 24-4-1984. The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed on 13-9-1984 against which the appellant filed the writ petition in the High Court of Delhi which was also dismissed by the impugned order against which this appeal has been directed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not absent from duty on the relevant date and time but in fact had gone to convey message to the higher authorities and to make a report of the incident. He submitted that this short absence while he had gone to inform his superiors cannot be regarded as an act of absence from duty. He further submitted that in any case the punishment of removal from service is too harsh and disproportionate to the charge against him. He urged that the appellant deserved lenient punishment since he had a clean and unblemished service record right from the year 1970.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for parties we are of the opinion that the punishment awarded to the appellant is no doubt severe and disproportionate and the same deserves to be set aside. Consequently, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we set aside the order of removal of the appellant from service dated 23-4-1984 and the impugned order of the High Court. We direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant with immediate effect. But the appellant will not be entitled to the arrears of his salary with effect from 24-4-1984, the date of removal from service up to 31-12-1994. The appellant shall however be entitled for the salary and all other benefits with effect from 1-1-1995. We also make it clear that the period from 24-4-1984 to the date of reinstatement of the appellant shall be treated in continuity of service. The respondents shall refix the salary of the appellant.
7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.
Alert