Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Negligence in CISF: Union of India vs. Subrata Nath (23 November 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 23 November 2022

Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 7939-7940 of 2022

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI and Hima Kohli, J.

Can a High Court overturn a disciplinary authority’s decision in a departmental inquiry? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case involving a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable dismissed for negligence. The core issue was whether the High Court should have interfered with the disciplinary authority’s findings and the punishment imposed. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

Subrata Nath, the respondent, joined the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) as a Constable on February 26, 1994. On November 7, 2007, he was assigned to the ‘C’ shift at the Alif Nagar Scrap yard in Kolkata Port. The next day, local police intercepted a truck carrying about 800 kg of copper wires outside the port, which had been stolen from the scrap yard during Nath’s shift. Consequently, Nath was suspended and charged with negligence and dereliction of duty, as well as having an incorrigible character due to past misconducts.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

An Inquiry Officer was appointed, who examined eight prosecution witnesses. Nath did not present any defense witnesses. The Inquiry Officer concluded that both charges against Nath were proven. The Disciplinary Authority rejected Nath’s representation and dismissed him from service on November 27, 2008. The Appellate Authority dismissed Nath’s appeal on February 3, 2009. A subsequent Revision Petition was also dismissed on May 19, 2009. Nath then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta, which was initially decided in his favor by converting the dismissal to compulsory retirement. However, a Division Bench of the High Court later overturned this decision, ordering Nath’s reinstatement with back wages and a fresh punishment order. This led to the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, specifically Rule 32, which deals with penalties for misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of dismissal from service on the respondent, as per Rule 32 read with Schedule-I and Rule 32(1) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001.

Arguments

Arguments by the Union of India:

• The High Court acted as an appellate authority, which is against the law laid down in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others [(1995) 6 SCC 749].
• The High Court should not have re-evaluated the evidence and substituted its findings for those of the Disciplinary Authority.
• The inquiry was conducted properly, and the findings were based on sufficient evidence.
• The punishment of dismissal was appropriate given the gravity of the misconduct and the respondent’s past record, citing Central Industrial Security Force and Others v. Abrar Ali [(2017) 4 SCC 507].
• The High Court cannot review the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held in State of Orissa and Others v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra [AIR 1963 SC 779].

Arguments by Subrata Nath:

• The Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in directing a fresh punishment order after the Single Judge had converted the dismissal to compulsory retirement.
• The order of compulsory retirement passed by the Single Judge should be restored.

[TABLE] of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was right in interfering with the punishment imposed on the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others [(1995) 6 SCC 749] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that judicial review is not an appeal and that courts should not re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are based on no evidence or violate natural justice.
• State of Orissa and Others v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra [AIR 1963 SC 779] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to support the argument that the High Court cannot review the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
• Central Industrial Security Force and Others v. Abrar Ali [(2017) 4 SCC 507] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to support the argument that past conduct can be considered while awarding a penalty, provided it is made part of a separate charge.
• State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya [(2011) 4 SCC 584] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to reiterate that courts should not act as an appellate court and reassess evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence.
• Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. and Others v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu [(2008) 5 SCC 569] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that courts should not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is disproportionate.
• Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran [(2015) 2 SCC 610] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to lay down the broad parameters within which the High Court should exercise its powers under Article 226/227 in disciplinary proceedings.
• Union of India and Others v. Ex. Constable Ram Karan [(2022) 1 SCC 373] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to reiterate that the disciplinary authority should decide the nature of punishment and that courts should not usurp that function.
• Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur [(1972) 4 SCC 618] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that if there is some evidence to support the Disciplinary Authority’s conclusion, the High Court should not interfere.
• Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to highlight that a writ of certiorari could be issued if the conclusion of the disciplinary authority is perverse or based on no evidence.
• Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that courts should not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse.
• Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana [(1999) 5 SCC 762] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that courts should not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse.
• High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [(2000) 1 SCC 416] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that courts should not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Rule 32 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001: This rule outlines the penalties that can be imposed for misconduct by members of the CISF. The Disciplinary Authority used this rule to impose the penalty of dismissal on the respondent.
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: This article grants High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes. The Supreme Court discussed the limitations of this power in the context of disciplinary proceedings.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others [(1995) 6 SCC 749]* to emphasize that the High Court should not act as an appellate authority and re-appreciate the evidence.
• The Supreme Court cited State of Orissa and Others v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra [AIR 1963 SC 779]* to support that the High Court cannot review the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
• The Supreme Court used Central Industrial Security Force and Others v. Abrar Ali [(2017) 4 SCC 507]* to justify considering past misconduct in determining the penalty.
• The Supreme Court cited State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya [(2011) 4 SCC 584]* to emphasize that courts should not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse.
• The Supreme Court cited Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. and Others v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu [(2008) 5 SCC 569]* to emphasize that courts should not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is disproportionate.
• The Supreme Court cited Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran [(2015) 2 SCC 610]* to lay down the parameters for High Court’s powers in disciplinary proceedings.
• The Supreme Court cited Union of India and Others v. Ex. Constable Ram Karan [(2022) 1 SCC 373]* to reiterate that the disciplinary authority should decide the nature of punishment.
• The Supreme Court cited Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur [(1972) 4 SCC 618]* to emphasize that if there is some evidence to support the Disciplinary Authority’s conclusion, the High Court should not interfere.
• The Supreme Court cited Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718]* to highlight that a writ of certiorari could be issued if the conclusion of the disciplinary authority is perverse or based on no evidence.
• The Supreme Court cited Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463]* to emphasize that courts should not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse.
• The Supreme Court cited Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana [(1999) 5 SCC 762]* to emphasize that courts should not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse.
• The Supreme Court cited High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [(2000) 1 SCC 416]* to emphasize that courts should not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline in the armed forces and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. The Court noted that the Disciplinary Authority had thoroughly examined the evidence and that the High Court had erred in re-evaluating the facts. The Court also highlighted that the respondent’s past misconducts, coupled with the seriousness of the current offense, justified the dismissal.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by both factual aspects of the case and legal considerations. The factual aspects include the evidence of misconduct and the respondent’s past record. The legal considerations include the principles of judicial review and the powers of disciplinary authorities.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the High Court’s intervention as an overreach of its powers, emphasizing that judicial review is not an appeal and that the Disciplinary Authority’s findings were based on sufficient evidence. The Court also considered the respondent’s past misconduct and the need to maintain discipline in the armed forces.

The Court rejected the High Court’s re-evaluation of evidence, stating that it was not within its purview. The Supreme Court also rejected the respondent’s argument that the Single Judge’s order should be restored, stating that the dismissal was justified.

“Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made.”

“The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts.”

“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty.”

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the reasoning and the final outcome.

The judgment clarifies the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, emphasizing that High Courts should not act as appellate authorities and re-evaluate evidence. It also highlights the importance of maintaining discipline in the armed forces and the appropriateness of considering past misconduct in determining penalties.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts should not interfere with findings of fact recorded by the Disciplinary Authority unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.
• Judicial review is not an appeal, and courts should not re-appreciate evidence.
• Disciplinary authorities have the discretion to impose appropriate punishment, considering the gravity of the misconduct and past record.
• Maintaining discipline in the armed forces is paramount.
• The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s judgment and restored the Disciplinary Authority’s order of dismissal.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts should not interfere with findings of fact recorded by the Disciplinary Authority unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. This case reinforces the principle that judicial review is not an appeal and that courts should not re-appreciate evidence in disciplinary matters. There is no change in the previous position of the law, but this case reiterates the existing legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. Subrata Nath reaffirms the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and upholds the disciplinary authority’s decision to dismiss the CISF constable. The Court emphasized that High Courts should not act as appellate authorities and re-evaluate evidence. The decision reinforces the importance of maintaining discipline in the armed forces and the appropriateness of considering past misconduct in determining penalties.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

• Child Category: Disciplinary Proceedings
• Child Category: Judicial Review

Parent Category: Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001

• Child Category: Rule 32, Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Union of India vs. Subrata Nath case?

A: The main issue was whether the High Court was right in interfering with the punishment imposed on a CISF constable by the Disciplinary Authority for negligence and dereliction of duty.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and upheld the Disciplinary Authority’s decision to dismiss the constable from service.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court overturn the High Court’s decision?

A: The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted as an appellate authority by re-evaluating the evidence, which is not within its jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that judicial review is not an appeal.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment for disciplinary proceedings?

A: This judgment clarifies the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, emphasizing that High Courts should not interfere with findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.

Q: Can past misconduct be considered in determining penalties?

A: Yes, the Supreme Court confirmed that past misconduct can be considered in determining penalties, provided it is made part of a separate charge.

Q: What does this case mean for members of the armed forces?

A: This case highlights the importance of maintaining discipline in the armed forces and that serious misconduct can lead to dismissal from service.