Past Clean Conduct Can’t Be A Ground To Interfere With Quantum Of Punishment Imposed By Disciplinary Authority: Jharkhand HC Dismisses CISF Officer’s Appeal
The Jharkhand High Court was considering an appeal filed by a former Assistant Commandant, CISF, who was accused of commenting on the caste of an Inspector.

The Jharkhand High Court clarified that the past clean conduct of the Officer cannot be a ground to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority which has later been confirmed by the Appellate Authority and a Single-Judge Bench.
The High Court was considering an appeal filed by a former Assistant Commandant, CISF, BSL, who was accused of commenting on the caste of an Inspector in his office.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary asserted, “We cannot also overlook that the appellant was an employee in the CISF, which was a disciplined force; and when the charge is a grave one like in the instant case, leniency is not called for.”
Advocate Rahul Kumar represented the Appellant while Additional Solicitor General of India Anil Kumar represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The appellant, when he was posted as Assistant Commandant, CISF, BSL, was served a charge memo alleging that he committed an act of misconduct in the year 2008 by commenting about the caste (SC) of an Inspector in front of an ASI and. In the year 2009, he again used insulting and intimidating remarks in his office on the same person, mentioning his caste in front of another ASI, with an intent to humiliate him. The appellant retired from the CISF but he was informed that enquiry would continue against him even after his superannuation under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972.Challenging the charge memo and initiation of departmental proceedings, the appellant had filed a Writ Petition.
The complainant had also filed a complaint against the appellant alleging that the appellant had committed an offence under Section 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. However, a final form was submitted in the criminal case.
After considering the records and advice tendered by UPSC, the Competent Authority held that the charges were proved against the appellant and imposed penalty of 20% cut in monthly pension on permanent basis and forfeiture of his entire gratuity. The appellant then filed a departmental appeal but the same was rejected. His appeal against the appellate authority’s order was also rejected. This is how the matter reached the Division Bench.
Reasoning
The Division Bench was of the view that the Single Judge had rightly held that dismissal of the complaint/protest petition was only on account of a technical reason that the alleged incident had occurred in the closed chamber of the appellant/accused and not in public view and so the offence under section 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was not attracted. However, the charge in the disciplinary enquiry was about abusing the subordinate on account of his caste and attempting to intimidate and humiliate him and such conduct was unbecoming of a Government servant and service in an armed force of the Union. This aspect was not decided in the Criminal Court.
“The term ‘gross misconduct’ used in the charge memo also means that the misconduct is a ‘grave’ misconduct i.e. extremely serious in nature and merely because the word ‘grave’ misconduct was not used in the charge memo, the appellant cannot take advantage of the same and contend that Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules cannot be invoked”, the Bench said.
Referring to the judgments in Devendra Swamy v. Karnataka SRTC (2002) and Mithilesh Singh v Union of India (2003), the Bench said, “It is also settled law that punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority, unless shockingly disproportionate to the charge, should not be interfered with, in exercise of power of judicial review.”
“So the plea of the counsel for the appellant about the past clean conduct of the appellant cannot be a ground to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, which was confirmed by the appellate authority and also by the learned Single Judge”, the Bench held while dismissing the appeal.
Cause Title: Rajani Kanta Patra v. Union Of India & Ors. (Case No.: L.P.A. No. 89 of 2023)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Rahul Kumar
Respondents: ASGI Anil Kumar, CGC Nikki Sinha