# Shakil Ahmad v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 348
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-22
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 68627 of 2015
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shakil-ahmad-v-union-of-india-ors-48023
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

A. Service Law - ReinSt.ment - Salary and
Consequential Benefits - Scope of Judicial
Review - CISF Rules, 2001: Rule 36;
Industrial Disputes Act: Section 11A -
Judicial review is not akin to adjudication
on merit by re-appreciating the evidence
as an Appellate authority. The High Court's
jurisdiction was circumscribed and confined to
correct errors of law or procedural error, if any,
resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or
violation of principles of natural justice. A
disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal
trial. The standard of proof required is
that of preponderance of probability and
not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the
enquiry has been properly held the question of
adequacy or reliability of evidence cannot be
canvassed before the High Court. A finding
cannot
be
characterised
as
perverse
or
unsupported by any relevant material, if it was a
12 All. Shakil Ahmad Vs. Union of India & Ors.
349
reasonable inference from proved facts. (Para
24)

B. Principle of proportionality - Only when
the
punishment
is
found
to
be
outrageously
disproportionate
to
the
nature
of
charge,
principle
of
proportionality comes into play. The Court
should take into account that the punishment is
not vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be
so disproportionate to the offence so as to
shock the conscience and is to be treated so
arbitrary, as to term it as violative of Article 14
of the Constitution and amount in itself to a
conclusive evidence of bias. Irrationality and
perversity are recognized grounds of
judicial review. (Para 33, 35)

In exercising judicial review in disciplinary
matters, there are two ends of the
spectrum. The first embodies a rule of
restraint.
The
second
defines
when
interference is permissible. The rule of
restraint constructs the ambit of judicial review.
This is for a valid reason. The determination of
whether a misconduct has been committed lies
primarily within the domain of the disciplinary
authority. The judge does not assume the
mantle of the disciplinary authority. Nor does
the judge wear the hat of an employer. The
first end of the spectrum is founded on
deference and autonomy - deference to the
position of the disciplinary authority as a factfinding authority and autonomy of employer in
maintaining discipline and efficiency of the
service. At the other end of the spectrum is
the principle that the Court has the
jurisdiction to interfere when the findings
in the enquiry are based on no evidence or
when they suffer from Perversity. (Para 41)

Failure to consider vital evidence is an
incident of what the law regards as a
perverse
determination
of
fact.
Proportionality is an entrenched feature of
our jurisprudence. Service jurisprudence has
recognised it for long years in allowing for the
authority of the court to interfere when the
finding or the penalty are disproportionate to
the weight of evidenced misconduct. Judicial
craft lies in ma

## Text

_Characters 0–39,824 of 70,400. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39824 for what follows._

348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Trade apprentices secure the same marks then
preference shall be given on the basis of
seniority and for this purpose the Ex-TA who
has passed NCTVT examination in earlier
batch (NCTVT) shall be senior to the Ex-TA
passed in subsequent batch. Thus, the
impugned order of the Tribunal drawing
inference of preference and treating it as a
right of the respondent-candidates to get
employment as "Semi-Skilled Workman"
without facing selection process to the
exclusion
of
all
others,
is
incorrect,
unsustainable and contrary to the law laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of State of Karnatka vs. Umadevi (supra).
That apart, the Central Government has now
amended policy in this regard by policy
decision dated 09.05.2016 in line with
Section 22 of the Act, 1961 making
"Provision of granting five extra marks to ExTrade Apprentices in the final merit list of the
written examination conducted for a total of
100 marks".
The
advertisement
being
notifications dated 20.06.2015 to 26.06.2015
are not in conflict with the Recruitment
Rules, 1994 and the aforequoted policy
decision of the Ordnance Factory Board and,
therefore, the Tribunal has committed a
manifest error of law and fact to quash it.

31. For all the reasons aforestated, the
impugned common order of the Tribunal
dated 06.10.2016 in O.A. No.330/00881 of
2015 (Alok Kumar and others vs. Union of
India and others) (subject matter of Writ-A
No.4315 of 2017), O.A. No.330/00532 of
2015 (Vicky Bhalla and others vs. Union of
India and others) (subject matter of Writ-A
No.11792 of 2017), O.A. No.330/01203 of
2015 (Deepak Maurya vs. Union of India
and others) (subject matter of Writ-A
No.10250 of 2017), O.A. No.330/01204 of
2015 (Sumit Verma and others vs. Union of
India and others) (subject matter of Writ-A
No.17851 of 2017), O.A. No.330/00801 of
2016 (Aditya Kumar vs. Union of India and
others) (subject matter of Writ-A No.11776
of 2017), O.A. No.330/01044 of 2015 (
Aditya Kumar vs. Union of India and
others) (subject matter of Writ-A No.9563
of 2017), cannot be sustained and is hereby
quashed. All the writ petitions are
allowed.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 348
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Writ-A No. 68627 of 2015

Shakil Ahmad ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitoner:
Sri Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Bal Mukund, Sri Gyan Prakash

A. Service Law - ReinSt.ment - Salary and
Consequential Benefits - Scope of Judicial
Review - CISF Rules, 2001: Rule 36;
Industrial Disputes Act: Section 11A -
Judicial review is not akin to adjudication
on merit by re-appreciating the evidence
as an Appellate authority. The High Court's
jurisdiction was circumscribed and confined to
correct errors of law or procedural error, if any,
resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or
violation of principles of natural justice. A
disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal
trial. The standard of proof required is
that of preponderance of probability and
not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the
enquiry has been properly held the question of
adequacy or reliability of evidence cannot be
canvassed before the High Court. A finding
cannot
be
characterised
as
perverse
or
unsupported by any relevant material, if it was a
12 All. Shakil Ahmad Vs. Union of India & Ors.
349
reasonable inference from proved facts. (Para
24)

B. Principle of proportionality - Only when
the
punishment
is
found
to
be
outrageously
disproportionate
to
the
nature
of
charge,
principle
of
proportionality comes into play. The Court
should take into account that the punishment is
not vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be
so disproportionate to the offence so as to
shock the conscience and is to be treated so
arbitrary, as to term it as violative of Article 14
of the Constitution and amount in itself to a
conclusive evidence of bias. Irrationality and
perversity are recognized grounds of
judicial review. (Para 33, 35)

In exercising judicial review in disciplinary
matters, there are two ends of the
spectrum. The first embodies a rule of
restraint.
The
second
defines
when
interference is permissible. The rule of
restraint constructs the ambit of judicial review.
This is for a valid reason. The determination of
whether a misconduct has been committed lies
primarily within the domain of the disciplinary
authority. The judge does not assume the
mantle of the disciplinary authority. Nor does
the judge wear the hat of an employer. The
first end of the spectrum is founded on
deference and autonomy - deference to the
position of the disciplinary authority as a factfinding authority and autonomy of employer in
maintaining discipline and efficiency of the
service. At the other end of the spectrum is
the principle that the Court has the
jurisdiction to interfere when the findings
in the enquiry are based on no evidence or
when they suffer from Perversity. (Para 41)

Failure to consider vital evidence is an
incident of what the law regards as a
perverse
determination
of
fact.
Proportionality is an entrenched feature of
our jurisprudence. Service jurisprudence has
recognised it for long years in allowing for the
authority of the court to interfere when the
finding or the penalty are disproportionate to
the weight of evidenced misconduct. Judicial
craft lies in maintaining a steady sail between
the banks of these two shores which have to be
termed as the two ends of the spectrum. (Para
41)

C. It is now well settled principle of law
that the principles of Evidence Act have no
application
in
the
domestic
enquiry.
Disciplinary enquiries have to abide by the Rules
of natural justice. But they are not governed by
strict rules of evidence which apply to judicial
proceedings. (Para 28, 41)

D.
Difference
between
standard of
proof in disciplinary proceedings and
criminal trials - The standard of proof in
disciplinary proceedings is different from
that in a criminal case. While the standard of
proof in a criminal case is proof beyond all
reasonable
doubt,
the
proof
in
a
departmental proceeding is preponderance
of probabilities. The court in a civil trial
applies
the
standard
of
proof
of
a
preponderance of probabilities. (Para 40)

E.
Doctrine
of
the
balance
of
preponderance of probabilities: It need
not reach certainty, but it must carry a
high degree of probability. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond
the shadow of doubt. If evidence is so strong
against the man as to leave only a remote
possibility in his favour which can be dismissed
with the sentence, "of course it is possible, but
not in the least probable", the case is proved
beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of
that will suffice. (Para 40)

F. Courts should not be guided by
misplaced
sympathy
and
should
not
interfere
merely
on
compassionate
grounds. In all cases dealing with penalty of
removal, dismissal or compulsory retirement,
hardship would result. That would not mean
that in a given case punishment of removal can
be discarded by the court. That cannot be a
ground for the court to interfere with the
penalty. While considering the proportionality of
punishment, the Court should also take into
consideration, the mental set up of the
delinquent, the type of duty to be performed by
him and similar relevant circumstances which go
into the decision making process. (Para 35, 36,
38, 39)
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
In the case of the petitioner he belonged to a
Central Paramilitary Force and discipline and
devotion to duty assigned to personnel is the
key to maintenance of order. The petitioner
admittedly was assigned duty at Watchtower
No. 3. He was to remain on duty till 01:00 PM
and would have had to take permission from a
Superior Officer or atleast inform a Superior
Officer
before
leaving
his
Sentry
Post
unattended. He did no such thing. He went to
Gate No. 2 and St.d an altercation with his
colleagues posted there which resulted in
fisticuffs. The petitioner did not inform any
Competent Officer of the incident either
immediately or soon after debriefing. The
lodging of criminal complaint and of FIR at the
intervention of the CJM Kanpur Nagar only
substantiate the stand of the Respondents that
the petitioner is a willful and indisciplined
employee. (Para 43)

This
Court
having
considered
all
the
circumstances which led to the passing of
the impugned
order
does not
find it
appropriate to interfere in the punishment of
compulsory retirement. He would be entitled
to all service benefits of a duly retired
employee. (Para 44)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. S.B.I. & ors. Vs Ramesh Dinkar Punde, (2006)
7 SCC 212 (Para 13)

2. Deputy Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan & ors. Vs J. Husain, (2013) 10 SCC
106 (Para 13)

3.
Government
of
Andhra
Pradesh
Vs
Mohammed Nasrullah Khan, 2006 (2) SCC 373
(Para 24)

4. U.O.I. Vs Sardar Bahadur, 1974 (2) SCC 618
(Para 24)

5. U.O.I. Vs Paramananda, 1989 (2) SCC 177
(Para 25)

6.
Cholan
Roadways
Ltd.
Vs
G
Thirugnanasambandam, 2005 (3) SCC 241 (Para
28)
7. Hombegowda Educational Trust Vs St. of
Karnataka, (2006) 1 SCC 430 (Para 35)

8. Ranveer Singh Vs U.O.I., 2009 (3) SCC 97 (Para 36)

9.
Charanjit
Lamba
Vs
Army
Southern
Command, 2010 (11) SCC 314 (Para 37)

10. St. of Meghalaya Vs Mecken Singh N. Marak,
2008 (7) SCC 580 (Para 38)

11. S.R. Tewari Vs U.O.I., 2013 (6) SCC 602
(Para 39)

12. St. of Raj. Vs Heem Singh, 2020 SCC online
SC 886 (Para 40)

13. Suresh Pathrella Vs The Oriental Bank of
Commerce, (2006) 10 SCC 572 (Para 40)

14. M. Siddiq Vs Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1
(Para 40)

Precedent distinguished:

1. Mavji C Lakum Vs C.B.I., (2008) 12 SCC 726
(Para 14)

2. Messers Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company
of India (Private) Limited Vs The Management,
AIR 1973 SC 1227 (Para 21)

3. Union Bank of India Vs Vishwamohan, 1998
(4) SCC 310 (Para 26)

4. Chairman & MD United Commercial Bank Vs
PC Kakkar, 2003 (4) SCC 364 (Para 26)

Present petition challenges order dated
04.09.2014,
passed
by
Commandant,
Central Industrial Security Force Unit,
Panki Thermal Power Station, Panki,
District Kanpur Nagar and also order
dated 04.02.2015, passed by the Deputy
Inspector General, CISF North Sector
Headquarters, Allahabad, and the order
dated 07.09.2015 passed by Inspector
General, North Sector, CISF Campus,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)
12 All. Shakil Ahmad Vs. Union of India & Ors.
351

1. This writ petition challenges the
order dated 4.9.2014 passed by the
Respondent No.5 the Commandant Central
Industrial Security Force Unit, Thermal
Power Station Panki, Kanpur Nagar, and
also the Order dated 04.02.2015 passed by
the Deputy Inspector General, CISF North
Sector Headquarters, Allahabad, and the
order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the
Respondent No.3, Inspector General, North
Sector, CISF Campus, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi. The petition further prays that
the respondents be directed to reinstate the
petitioner as Constable and to pay him his
regular monthly salary and consequential
benefits.

2. It is the case of the petitioner as
argued by Sri Siddhartha Khare, that he
was appointed as constable in CISF on
25.09.1990, and he remained in service up
to 08.02.2006 when he was removed for
alleged misconduct of leaving his place of
duty
at
the
Watchtower
No.3
on
07.08.2005, at around 10:40AM and going
to Gate No.2, and misbehaving with his
colleagues and making allegations against
the senior officers and that he approached
the local Police Station straightaway for
lodging First Information Report against
his
three
colleagues
that
they
had
threatened him with dire consequences
instead of informing his superior officers
first with regard to the incident which took
place at Gate No.02. It has been submitted
that
on
25.08.2005
the
Assistant
Commandant CISF Unit GAIL, Patna, was
appointed as enquiry officer who proceeded
to conduct an ex- parte enquiry against the
petitioner
in
between
15.12.2005
to
19.12.2005 , wherein statements of several
witnesses were recorded without giving any
opportunity to the petitioner to crossexamine them. The petitioner was under
medical treatment and in no position to
participate in the enquiry. An enquiry
report
was
submitted
on
10.01.2006
indicating the petitioner with regard to all
three charges levelled against him. A copy
of the enquiry report was sent to the
petitioner on 15.01.2006 granting him time
to submit his reply to the show cause
notice. The petitioner submitted his reply
on
20.01.2006
before
the
Senior
Commandant that the petitioner had in fact
been assaulted by three members of the
Unit and had received serious injuries for
which he was undergoing treatment. The
petitioner however was removed from
service on 08.02.2006 by the Respondent
No.5 with a further direction that he would
not
be
entitled
to
any
additional
emoluments for the period of suspension
with effect from 07.08.2005 to 08.02.2006.
The petitioner filed an Appeal which was
rejected by the respondent no. 04. His
Revision
was
also
rejected
by
the
Respondent No.3. Aggrieved, the petitioner
preferred a Writ Petition No. 53433 of
2008 which was partly allowed by means
of an Order dated 27.09.2012, on the
ground that principles of natural justice had
not been followed in the disciplinary
proceedings held against the petitioner. The
Court by its order dated 27.09.2012
directed that enquiry shall proceed from the
stage it stood vitiated i.e. with effect from
15.12.2005.
The
reinstatement
and
consequential benefits to the petitioner
shall be subject to orders passed in the
fresh enquiry.

3. However, after a lapse of nearly
two years the respondents by the order
dated 19.05.2014 nominated one Inspector
and one Assistant Commander as enquiry
officers. Dates were fixed for hearing and
the petitioner appeared and participated in
the enquiry which continued
up to
11.07.2014. Thereafter an enquiry report
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 02.08.2014, was filed by enquiry
officer and the petitioner was issued a show
cause notice to which he replied on
11.08.2014. The Respondent No.5 passed a
punishment
order
on
04.09.2014
compulsorily
retiring
the
petitioner.
Aggrieved
against
such
order
of
punishment the petitioner filed an Appeal
which has been rejected by the Respondent
NO.4 by its order dated 04.02.2015. The
petitioner filed a Revision thereafter which
has also been rejected by the Respondent
No.3.

4. It has been argued by the
petitioner's counsel that on 07.08.2005 the
petitioner's duty was at Watchtower No.3
from 05:00 AM to 01:00 PM. Verbal duty
was also assigned to the petitioner to
remain at Watchtower No.3 and also to
periodically do patrolling from Watchtower
No.3 to Gate No.2. The duty of the
petitioner was cross checked by Shift-inCharge at 07:25 AM and also at 10:15 AM.
The petitioner was found alert and on duty
at Watchtower No.3. As instructed, the
petitioner started patrolling and at about
10:25 AM he reached Gate No.2 and
noticed that the Company Office of the
petitioner's Unit at Gate No.2 was open
although it was a Sunday, where Head
Constable Bhanwaru Ram, Company Head
Moharrir Ajaib Singh and Company Writer
OPS Yadav were sitting. Out of curiosity
the petitioner went inside and asked them
as to whether they had forwarded the name
of the petitioner for Refresher Course and
they replied in the affirmative. The
petitioner expressed his annoyance as he
was residing in family accommodation
along with his wife and children and it
would be difficult for him to go for the
Refresher Course at such short notice. The
petitioner said that had they told him about
the Refresher Course earlier it would have
been better. However Bhanwaru Ram,
Ajaib Singh and OPS Yadav reacted very
violently and abused the petitioner. The
petitioner resisted but he was caught hold
of and beaten up and threatened with dire
consequences. The petitioner sustained
severe injuries but since it was his duty
hour the petitioner came back to his post at
Watchtower No.3. The three persons who
had beaten him up however poisoned the
ears of the Assistant Commandant who
further told the Company Commandant on
telephone and upon the one-sided version
of the three persons who were guilty of
beating up the petitioner, the authorities
made up their mind that the petitioner was
guilty.

5. It has been argued that during the
enquiry nine witnesses were examined by
the enquiry officer of which two witnesses
said that no such incident as was alleged in
the chargesheet had taken place on
07.08.2005. Three witnesses stated that
they were informed of such incident
happening at the office at Gate No.2 but
had not actually seen it. The Company
Commandant also stated that he was only
informed about the altercation and had not
actually witnessed it. In their earlier
statements recorded in 2005, some of the
witnesses had implicated the petitioner but
on fresh statements being given by them
before the new enquiry officer they denied
that any altercation took place and stated
that they had earlier given a false statement
against the petitioner under the pressure of
the superior officers.

6. It has been argued that the enquiry
officer had relied upon the statement of
PW-01, PW-03 and PW-06 who were the
persons directly involved in the alleged
altercation with the petitioner. The learned
counsel for the petitioner has also read out
12 All. Shakil Ahmad Vs. Union of India & Ors.
353
the statements of other witnesses to say that
several of such witnesses had given neutral
statements or a statement in favour of the
petitioner
that
no
such
incident
of
altercation or use of abusive language had
occurred on 07.08.2005. The learned
counsel for the petitioner after reading out
the relevant portions of the statements of all
the nine witnesses has referred to the
conclusion drawn by the enquiry officer
saying
that
the
enquiry officer
has
deliberately not considered the statements
made in favour of the petitioner and has
taken into account the statements made
against him. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has also read out the statement of
the petitioner before the enquiry officer and
has argued that the version of the petitioner
was that he was assaulted by Sarva Shri
Bhanwaru Ram, Ajaib Singh and O. P. S.
Yadav, pursuant to which he lodged a First
Information Report against them and with
regard to which criminal proceedings are
pending against the three was ignored. He
also stated that his injury had been treated
by doctors of Government Medical College
who should have been examined during the
course of enquiry which was not done. It
has been argued that there has been no
findings recorded by the enquiry officer
with regard to the version of the petitioner
that he was assaulted and abused by
Bhanwaru Ram, Ajaib Singh and O. P. S.
Yadav,
pursuant
to
which
he
had
approached the Police and succeeded in
lodging
the
FIR
against
them
on
16.01.2006 only after the intervention of
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Kanpur.
Criminal Case No. 801 of 2011 is pending
against the accused at District Kanpur
Nagar. An application under section 482
CrPC had been filed by the accused which
was rejected by this Court by an order
dated 17.04.2015. Despite such criminal
case being pending against his three
colleagues, no departmental action has
been taken against them for physically
assaulting the petitioner. Departmental
proceedings were initiated only against the
petitioner in pursuance to which the order
impugned has been passed.

7. It has been argued that the enquiry
report shows that the petitioner had
provided several documents regarding the
treatment undertaken by him at the hospital
subsequent to being assaulted by the three
constables Bhanwaru Ram, Ajaib Singh
and O. P. S. Yadav, however no finding has
been
recorded
with
regard
to
such
documents by the enquiry officer. No
finding has also been recorded as to why
the submission made by two prosecution
witnesses , Raksh Pal and K.D. Singh has
been ignored. It has been argued that the
impugned order of punishment has been
passed ignoring the reply filed by the
petitioner to the show cause notice. The
Appeal and Revision has also been rejected
in a mechanical manner without noticing
and dealing with the grounds taken therein.

8. It has been argued that the penalty
imposed
upon
the
petitioner
is
disproportionate to the charges levelled
against him. It has been argued by the
petitioners counsel that the petitioner was
hardly absent for 10 minutes or so from his
duty at Watchtower number three and such
a charge could only result in a minor
penalty.

9. The learned counsel for the
Respondents Sri Bal Mukund, on the other
hand, has pointed out that the petitioner
was
an
indisciplined
employee
and
discipline
is
the
mainstay
of
the
Respondent Force. He has referred to
several paragraphs of the counteraffidavit
filed on behalf of the Respondent No.5.
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
According to such counter affidavit the
petitioner was appointed in 1990 as
Constable
(General
Duty)
and
after
completion of training he was posted to
various CISF units. Lastly, he was posted at
CISF Unit at Panki, Kanpur in 2004. As per
the service record of the petitioner during
his tenure he was awarded as many as three
minor
penalties
for
various
which
misconducts/indiscipline. These included
over stay of leave, dereliction of duty and
misbehaving with Shift-in-Charge and
making a false complaint against Unit
Administration. While serving at CISF Unit
at Panki, the petitioner was found involved
in grave misconduct/indiscipline , and
therefore he was dealt with under Rule 36
Of the CISF Rules 2001 and a Charge
Sheet containing three charges was served
upon him. According to the First Charge
the petitioner was detailed for Shift duty
from 05:00AM to 01:00 PM at Watchtower
No.3 on 07.08.2005. At about 10:40 AM he
left his duty post without any prior
intimation or permission of the Competent
Officer and went to the Company Office
located at Gate No.2 on his own. The
petitioner
committed
a
serious
and
indisciplined act of negligence towards his
duty. As per Charge No.2, the petitioner on
visiting the Company Office at Gate No.2
on his own, created nuisance over there and
argued with the Company Writer, and the
Head Constable for putting his name for
Refresher Course. He threatened Constable
Ajaib Singh and two other personnel that
he would see them outside the Gate and
also made allegations and threatened the
Assistant Commandant and a Senior
Commandant of dire consequences. He also
alleged that because Constable Ajaib Singh
is a Sardar (Sikh) and the Assistant
Commandant and the Commandant are also
Sardars (Sikhs) they were partial to him.
The petitioner had thus committed serious
misconduct involving himself in breach of
communal harmony, and unity of the
country and of the Force. Such conduct
displayed utter disregard of his superiors
and amounted to serious indiscipline. The
Third Charge related to the petitioner
making a written complaint directly to the
Panki Police Station alleging assault by
Head Constable Bhanwaru Ram, Constable
Ajaib Singh and Constable O.P.S. Yadav,
and also that they had threatened to kill
him. If there was any complaint, petitioner
Shakeel Ahmed should have first informed
the matter to the senior officers of the Unit
instead of lodging complaint in Panki
Police Station directly. This act of the
Constable Shakeel Ahmed as a member of
a disciplined paramilitary force, amounted
to
gross
indiscipline,
irresponsible
behaviour and an attempt to tarnish the
image of the Force.

10. In the enquiry that was held
thereafter punishment order was passed
removing him from service on 8 February
2006. His Appeal and Revision having
been rejected the petitioner filed Writ
Petition which was allowed partly by this
Court by its Order dated 27.09.2012,
directing the Respondents to conduct a
fresh enquiry to enable the petitioner to
participate in the proceedings. The Court
ordered that the consequent reinstatement
and consequential benefits to the petitioner
would be subject to the orders which would
be passed after completion of the fresh
enquiry that is to say , that he would neither
be reinstated nor any benefit extended to
him till he was exonerated in the enquiry. It
has been submitted that the Denovo
enquiry was conducted as per the procedure
laid down, on a day to day basis. The
Prosecution Witnesses and the Court
witnesses were examined in the presence of
the petitioner , he was also extended
12 All. Shakil Ahmad Vs. Union of India & Ors.
355
sufficient opportunity to cross examine the
Prosecution Witnesses. He was given
sufficient opportunity to defend the charges
framed against him and because of his
failure to prove his version , the enquiry
officer submitted a report finding him
guilty of all charges. There was no
procedural irregularity in the conduct of the
enquiry. The petitioner was issued show
cause notice and Respondent No.5 after
considering all evidence on record and also
the reply of the petitioner to the show cause
notice, imposed the penalty of Compulsory
Retirement
from
service
with
full
pensionary
benefits.
The
Appellate
authority did not find any procedural
infirmity in the conduct of the discipline
proceedings and also did not find the
penalty disproportionate to his proven
misconduct. The Appeal having been
rejected, the petitioner filed a Revision
which has also been carefully examined by
the Respondent No. 3 and all relevant
documents were taken into account and the
Respondent No. 3 has rejected the Revision
thereafter.

11. It has been argued that the
petitioner was detailed to do his duty only
on Watchtower No. 3. Instead of remaining
on duty at Watchtower No. 3 he reached
Gate No.2 of his own volition without
being instructed to do so, and without prior
permission. There was no need to go to
Gate No.2 which was being manned by
other
three
armed
personnel.
The
Watchtower is a static point from where a
sentry has to observe the surrounding areas
to ensure that there is no unauthorised
entry/trespass or scaling over, or intrusion
from the perimeter wall. Since the
petitioner left his duty post Watchtower
No. 3 unattended it was a grave act of
indiscipline on his part. The petitioner was
detailed
for
the
Refresher
Course
commencing with effect from 16.08.2005
by the order passed by the Assistant
Commandant of the Unit on 05.08.2005.
He had been informed well in advance.
There was no need for the petitioner to
approach the Company Writer so that his
name
would
be
deleted
from
the
nomination. When the Company Writer did
not agree to change his name the petitioner
created a nuisance and started making wild
allegations against the Company Writer and
also the Head Constable for putting his
name
for
a
Refresher
Course.
The
petitioner had started quarrelling, abusing
and threatening the three personnel. It was
at that point of time that the Assistant
Commandant and Senior Commandant had
come out of their Office and went near
Gate No.2 where they found Head
Constable
C.B. Chaudhary
trying
to
counsel and placate the petitioner to go to
his duty post. The petitioner's version that
he was beaten up by the three personnel
was unsupported by any evidence. The
three personnel had reported the matter to
the Assistant Commandant of the Senior
Commandant and accordingly report of the
same was entered in the General Diary.
After completion of Shift Duty at 01:00PM
the petitioner reported at the main Gate and
attended the Debriefing but he did not
report anything to the Shift-in-Charge
about any injury caused to him by the
Company Writer or the Head Constable. It
has been stated repeatedly that it is clear
from his conduct right after the incident on
07.08.2005 that the petitioner was neither
threatened nor beaten up by the three
personnel against whom he complained to
the
Senior
Commandant
only
on
11.08.2005 and sought permission for
lodging FIR at Police Station, Panki.
Moreover, no information regarding the
petitioner approaching the Court of the
CJM and thereafter lodging FIR on his
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
intervention has been given to the Unit
Commander at Panki, Kanpur.

12. In the counter affidavit filed by
the Respondents they have seriously
disputed the allegation of the petitioner
being injured and being treated at hospital.
After the incident on 07.08.2005, the
petitioner did not approach any member of
the Unit for First Aid and did not apply or
seek help for medical treatment on the
same day. He also did not inform of any
injury
to
him
to
the
Shift-inCharge/Company Commander during Shift
Debriefing. The medical certificates filed
by the petitioner related to medical
treatment undertaken by him with effect
from 27.09.2005 to 05.10.2005. In this
regard the Senior Commandant, CISF had
written a letter on 24.11.2005 to the CMS,
GSVM Medical College, Kanpur and
sought information regarding treatment of
the petitioner and also requested a second
opinion. In reply, the CMS of GSVM
Medical College, Kanpur, through his letter
dated
30.11.2005
informed
that
the
petitioner was admitted in hospital on
24.09.2005 for treatment of weakness in his
legs and was discharged on 05.10.2005.
Further the CMS informed that after
investigation neither symptom of any
disease nor any injury was noticed on the
body of the petitioner. The petitioner had
failed to give any valid evidence regarding
reported assault on him by Head Constable
Bhanwaru Ram and by Constables Ajaib
Singh and O.P.S. Yadav.

13. Sri Balmukund, Learned counsel
for the respondents has also read out the
intemperate
language
used
by
the
petitioner
in
his
representation/
application to his Commandant and has
also read out paragraph 19 onwards from
the counter affidavit. He has pointed out
the certificate of the treating doctor at
Hallet Hospital, Kanpur, saying that such
doctor had certified that when the
petitioner reported for treatment on
24.09.2005, he had no marks of any
injury on examination and he complained
of weakness in his legs only. The learned
counsel for the respondent has also read
out the concluding portion of the enquiry
report to say that the petitioner not only
misbehaved with his colleagues but also
with his Commandant and Assistant
Commandant and left his post at the
Watchtower No. 3 without permission.
He had also filed FIR against his
colleagues without proper sanction from
the commandant. He referred to 2
judgements of the Supreme Court in the
case of State Bank of India and Others
versus Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006 ) 7
SCC 212; and in the case of Deputy
Commissioner
Kendriya
Vidyalaya
Sangathan and Others versus J. Husain
(2013) 10 SCC 106.

14. The learned counsel for the
petitioner in his reply has referred to the
medical certificate issued by the treating
doctor of the government hospital to say
that the petitioner had gone for treatment of
weakness in his legs after more than one
month from the date of the incident dated 7
August 2005. Injury, if any which he had
sustained in his abdomen due to being
beaten up mercilessly by his colleagues
would have healed up by then. Moreover,
enquiry
officer
has
referred
to
the
petitioner's conduct in getting a false
Medical Certificate and lodging FIR
against his colleagues without proper
approval of the competent officer, but these
charges were not mentioned in the
chargesheet. Ld counsel for the petitioner
has
placed
reliance
upon
judgement
rendered by the Supreme Court in the case
12 All. Shakil Ahmad Vs. Union of India & Ors.
357
of Mavji C Lakum versus Central Bank Of
India (2008 ) 12 SCC 726.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that a rejoinder affidavit has
been filed by the petitioner in October,
2019 in which he has reiterated the contents
of the writ petition while denying the
contents of the counter affidavit.

16. The learned counsel for the
Respondent
has
pointed
out
that
a
supplementary counter affidavit has been
filed thereafter by the respondents wherein
it has been stated that the petitioner was
detailed for duty on Watchtower No.3.
There were no instructions that the Sentry
of Watchtower No.3 would patrol the area
from Watchtower No.3 to Gate No.2. It
was neither instructed by the Shift-inCharge nor by the Company Commandant
nor by Assistant Commandant. The story of
patrolling from Watchtower No.03 to Gate
No.2 was fabricated by the petitioner to
save himself otherwise there was no need
to patrol up to Gate No. 2 which was being
manned by three armed personnel. From
the evidence that was collected during the
enquiry it was found that the petitioner had
left his duty post that is Watchtower No.3
without any permission of any Competent
Authority
and
had
approached
the
Company Office located at Gate No.2 and
started quarrelling with the Company
Writer in vain. The petitioner had been
detailed for Refresher Course commencing
from
16.08.2005
by
the
Assistant
Commandant by his order dated 05.08.2005
for which he was informed well in advance.
On 07.08.2005 while performing duty at
the Watchtower No.3 the petitioner left his
duty post and approached the Company
Office at Gate No.2 and started quarrelling
and
blaming
the
Company
Writer
Constable, O.P.S. Yadav, Constable Ajaib
Singh and Head Constable Bhanwaru Ram
for putting his name in the refresher course.
While blaming them he also started
quarrelling
and
abusing
them
and
threatened the Assistant Commandant and
Senior
Commandant
with
dire
consequences. When he came out of the
Company Office at Gate No.02 Head
Constable C.B. Chaudhary tried to console
him and requested him to go to his duty
post. At the time of attending the
Debriefing in the afternoon, the petitioner
had not reported anything to the Shift-inCharge about the quarrel that had taken
place at Company Office at Gate No.2 or
any injury caused to him by any of his
colleagues. Had he been injured he would
definitely have informed the Shift-inCharge immediately on completion of the
Shift .

17. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, this court has carefully
examined the papers submitted by the
petitioner during the time of enquiry
relating to his date of admission in GSVM
Medical College, Kanpur, on 24.09.2005.
The doctor writing the clinical history had
stated that the petitioner had complained of
pain over mid and lower back for the past
one and a half months and gradual
progressive weakness in lower limbs for
past twenty days. The patient had stated
himself that he was apparently alright one
and a half months ago when following
slipping of his foot, he fell. At that time he
was able to stand up without any
discomfort but 25 days later patient started
feeling pain in his mid and lower back and
weakness in both lower limbs. Since then
the weakness in both lower limbs was
gradually progressing and he complained
also of tingling in both lower limbs
although there was no loss of sensation and
other symptoms related with any injury.
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
There was no history of any other chronic
illness or pain in the past. In X-Ray that
was done of Dorsal and Lumbar Spine
there was no sign of injury. Common
painkillers like Diclofenac along with
NSAID, Multivitamins, Calcium, and Iron
was prescribed.

18. This Court has also gone through
the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry
officer which became the basis for the
passing of the punishment order. There
were nine prosecution witnesses including
Head Constable Bhanwaru Ram, Constable
Ajaib Singh and Constable O.P.S. Yadav,
Sub-Inspector C.B. Chaudhary, Assistant
Commandant S.P. Tripathi, Assistant SubInspector R.K. Kaushal, Sub-Inspector and
Shift-in-Charge and Constables K.D. Singh
and Rashpal Singh (PW-04 and PW-05).
All the witnesses were given copies of
earlier statements made by them on
15.12.2005 and 16.12.2005 before the
enquiry officer which inquiry was found
vitiated by the High Court and set aside
that with a direction for conducting a fresh
enquiry. In the enquiry report mention has
also been made of documentary evidence.
Besides other evidence produced by the
prosecution there is a copy of Report filed
at 12:10 hours on 07.08.2005 in the
General Diary kept at Gate No.02 regarding
misbehaviour of the petitioner. In the
documentary evidence submitted by the
petitioner there was a copy of FIR tried to
be lodged on 07.08.2005 by Shakeel
Ahmed. And copy of application to the
Senior Commandant dated 11.08.2005
praying for permission to lodge a report at
Police Station, Panki against the three
accused. The petitioner had also relied
upon copy of Miscellaneous Criminal Case
No. 807/2011, pending before CJM,
Kanpur Nagar. In the enquiry held it had
come out that Watchtower No.3 was
around 50 - 100 metres away from Gate
No.2 and these were two different duty
posts. The Sentry at Watchtower No.3 is
assigned duty only to keep a watch on an
area which he could normally see. Sentry at
Watchtower No.3 had to compulsorily stay
at his watch post and even for attending
nature's call he had to take permission from
the competent officer before leaving the
Watchtower. Gate No.2 on the other hand
has one Junior Commissioned Officer also
on duty and if any need arises the Sentry at
Watchtower No.3 can take permission of
the subordinate officer at Gate No.2 and
leave his post at Watchtower No.3. It has
also come out in the enquiry report that the
petitioner had initially tried to lodge FIR at
Police Station, Panki on 07.08.2005 and
when the same was refused to be lodged by
the Police Station he had sought permission
from the Senior Commandant only on
11.08.2005 for getting the FIR lodged
against his colleagues. Thereafter, the
petitioner had approached the Court of the
CJM, in January 2006, and on his
intervention the Report was lodged.

19. The enquiry has been conducted
in a very meticulous manner. The Charges
have been mentioned, the Prosecution
Witnesses and Documentary Evidence have
been mentioned. the Defence Witnesses
and Documents have also been mentioned
and then the statements of all the
Prosecution
Witnesses
have
been
mentioned and also the cross-examination
done by the petitioner. Thereafter the
petitioner's defence statement has been
mentioned. The Presenting Officers Brief
Note has also been mentioned. The
petitioner's reply to the Presenting Officer's
Brief Note has also been mentioned.
Thereafter, the admitted facts have been
mentioned and also the facts which were
disputed. In the facts that could not be
12 All. Shakil Ahmad Vs. Union of India & Ors.
359
disputed by the petitioner in his statement
at page no. 184 of the Paper Book was the
fact that he had been detailed to do his duty
at Sentry Post on Watchtower No. 3 only. It
was also not disputed by him that the
petitioner had not taken prior permission of
any competent officer to leave his post at
Watchtower No.3 or to approach the
Company Office at Gate No.2. It could not
be disputed by him that Gate No.2 office
was not in his watch duty. It was also not
disputed by the petitioner that he left
Watchtower No.3 unattended at around
10:40 AM. It was also not disputed by the
petitioner that he did not inform any
superior officer/duty in charge that he had
gone to the Office at Gate No.2 and he had
entered into an altercation with his three
colleagues posted there.