Patna High Court
Bipin KumarversusThe Union Of India and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The punishment order and the subsequent appellate and revisional orders were set aside because the disciplinary authority failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 36 and Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001.
Summary
The petitioner, a CISF constable, challenged three orders that imposed a fine of seven days' salary and dismissed his appeal and revision, alleging procedural violations under the CISF Rules, 2001. He claimed that the disciplinary authority failed to prepare charge sheets, list documents and witnesses, and follow the enquiry procedure prescribed in Rule 36 and Rule 37. The Union of India contended that the minor penalty procedure did not require furnishing documents and that the orders were valid. The High Court examined the statutory requirements and found that the authorities had not complied with the mandated procedure, rendering the punishment and subsequent appellate and revisional orders invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside all three orders and directed the refund of the deducted amount, allowing the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the disciplinary authority complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 36 and Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001 while imposing a minor penalty.
- Whether the punishment order of deduction of seven days' pay is liable to be quashed for procedural non‑compliance.
- Whether the appellate and revisional orders dismissing the petitioner's challenge are also set aside on the same ground.
Subjects
- CISF Rules
- disciplinary proceedings
- procedural fairness
- minor penalty
- service law
- punishment quashed
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18809 of 2013
======================================================
Bipin Kumar Son Of Sri Bishundeo Singh Permanent Resident Of Mohalla-
New Colony, Dumari, P.S.- Mufassil, Dist- Begusarai, Presently Posted As
Constable, Cisf Unit, Kbunl, Kanti, Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union Of India through Secretary, Ministry of Public Grievances and
Pensions, Department of Personal and Training, North Block, New Delhi
2. The Director General, CISF Head Quarters, No. 13 CGOs Complex, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi- 100003
3. The Group Commandant, CISF Group Head Quarters, Patna
4. The Deputy Inspector General, CISF Group Head Quarters, Patna
5. The Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit, KBUNL, Kanti, Muzaffarpur
6. The assistant commandant, CISF Unit, KBUNL, Kanti, Muzaffarpur
7. The inspector, CISF Unit, KBUNL, Kanti, Muzaffarpur
8. The company Hawaldar Manager, CISF Unit, KBUNL, Kanti, Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nityanand, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. C.G.C.
: Mr. R. K. Sharma, C.G.C.
: Mr. Abhishek Kumar Verma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 17-03-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
(1) For quashing the order dated 05.04.2013,
contained in Order No. V Passed by the
KBUNL, Kanti, 15014/ CISF/Disc-
37/2013/671, Assistant Commandant,
CISF Unit, by which the Muzaffarpur,
petitioner has been awarded the
punishment of Pay fine equal to his 07
days pay, i.e. deduction of amount equal
to seven daya salary.
(ii) For quashing the 22.04.2013, order dated
contained in Order No. 15014/ CISF/
Patna High Court CWJC No.18809 of 2013 dt.17-03-2026
2/8
KBUNL/ Disc-37/ 2013/ 755, passed by
the Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit,
KBUNL, Kanti, Muzaffarpur, by which
the appeal petition submitted by the
petitioner has been rejected holding the
same devoid of merit and baseless.
(iii) For quashing the order dated 28.06.2013,
contained in Order No. 3307, passed by
the Group Commandant, CISF Group
Head Quarters, East Part, Patna, by
which the revision petition, dated
24.04.2013, submitted by the petitioner,
has been rejected holding the same
devoid of merit.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ
petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable
bearing no. 963512831 in the Central Industrial Security Force.
After being transferred from CISF Unit at H.E.C. Ranchi, the
petitioner gave his joining at CISF Unit KBUNL, Kanti,
Muzaffarpur and was regularly discharging his duties. In the
month of January 2013, one CH.M. Krishna Kumar asked the
petitioner to pay Rs. 2000/- for managing the higher authorities,
for which a complaint was made to the Inspector as well as to
the Assistant Commandant by the petitioner, but no action was
taken, then the petitioner was constrained to file a representation
before the higher authorities, including the Director General,
CISF, New Delhi through the department on 03.02.2013. On the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18809 of 2013 dt.17-03-2026
3/8
representation dated 03.02.2013, filed by the petitioner, a show
cause was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Commandant,
CISF vide Letter No. 269 dated 08.02.2013. The petitioner filed
his reply to the show cause notice, on 11.02.2013, but without
considering the reply of the petitioner, the petitioner was
awarded punishment of censure vide order dated 06.03.2013
contained in Memo No. 466 by the Deputy Commandant, CISF
Unit, KBUNL, Kanti, Muzaffarpur. Again, a show cause notice
was issued to the petitioner vide letter no. 261 dated 07.02.2013,
issued under the signature of the Assistant Commandant, CISF
Unit, KBUNL, Kanti with an allegation that the petitioner has ill
treated and attempted to assault the C.H.M. of the unit, namely,
Kishan Kumar with Chaila and petitioner had also referred to
him as Chugalkhor. The petitioner asked for certain documents
and evidence in support of the charges levelled against him, by
way of filing an application dated 08.02.2013, but without
providing the same, vide Letter No. 354 dated 22.02.2013, the
proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in the name of the
preliminary enquiry and it was stated that since it is a
preliminary enquiry, no document or evidence is required to be
provided to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to file his
show cause reply within two days. On which again the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18809 of 2013 dt.17-03-2026
4/8
petitioner asked for the documents and evidences in support of
the charges levelled against him, by way of filing an application
dated 23.02.2023, but without furnishing the documents and
evidences to the petitioner, enquiry was conducted by the
Inspector of the Unit and finally the punishment of deduction of
amount equivalent to 7 days of pay of the petitioner was
awarded. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Competent Authority, wherein he raised all the grounds which
he has taken while filing his reply, but the appellate authority,
without considering the same, proceeded to reject the appeal
filed by the petitioner vide order contained in Memo No.
15014//CISF/KBUNL/Disc-37/2013/755 dated 22.04.2013.
Being aggrieved with the order of punishment as well as the
order of the appellate authority, the petitioner filed revision
before the competent authority, but the same was also dismissed
vide Order No. 3307 dated 28.06.2013, passed by the Group
Commandant, CISF, Group Head Quarter, East Zone, Patna.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001 deal with the procedure
for imposing minor penalties, wherein the procedure has been
laid down for imposing any minor penalty on a delinquent
employee of the CISF. He points out that Rule 37(b) provides
Patna High Court CWJC No.18809 of 2013 dt.17-03-2026
5/8
for holding enquiry, if the disciplinary authority so desires, in
the manner laid down under Sub-Rule 3 to 22 of Rule 36. The
said points Rule 36(3) is being reproduced hereinbelow:-
“3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry
against an enrolled member of the Force
under this rule the disciplinary authority
shall draw up or cause to be drawn up-
(i) the substance of the imputation of
misconduct or misbehaviour into definite
and distinct articles of charge;
(ii) a statement of the imputation of
misconduct or misbehaviour in support
of each article of charge, which shall
contain-
(a) a statement of all relevant facts
including any admission or confession
made by the enrolled member of the
Force,
(b) a list of documents by which, and a
list of witnesses by whom, the articles
of charge are proposed to be
sustained”
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that no procedure as envisaged in under Rule 36 (3-22) of the
CISF Rules, 2001 were followed, while imposing the
punishment upon the petitioner, therefore, the orders contained
in Memo No. 15014/CISF/Disc-37/2013/671 dated 05.04.2013
passed by the Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit, KBUNL,
Kanti, Muzaffarpur is fit to be set aside and also the order
Patna High Court CWJC No.18809 of 2013 dt.17-03-2026
6/8
passed by the Appellate Authority and the order passed by the
Revisional Authority are also fit to be set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Union of
India submits that for indisciplined act of the petitioner, he was
issued a charge memo under minor proceeding in terms of Rule
37 of the CISF Rules, 2001 vide Charge Memo No. 261 dated
07.02.2013 and there is no provision to supply document under
Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001. The same was intimated to the
petitioner with a direction to submit his reply within two days,
however the petitioner was adamant in his stand and failed to
submit his reply, as such the petitioner was awarded minor
punishment of 7 days pay fine vide order no. 671 dated
05.04.2013. He submits that the orders passed by the
disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and the
Revisional Authority are in accordance with the Act and Rules
of the CISF, therefore, there is no infirmity in the same.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the materials available on record, this
Court finds that while imposing the punishment order, no
procedure was followed by the authorities concerned as
provided in Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001, since admittedly,
no list of document or witnesses were ever provided to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18809 of 2013 dt.17-03-2026
7/8
petitioner and the authorities concerned proceeded to pass the
punishment order in complete violation of the provisions
prescribed in Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001. Before passing
the order of punishment, the procedure prescribed in Rule 37
and 36 (2 to 22) of the CISF Rules, 2001 were required to be
followed and in absence thereof, the entire punishment order is
not sustainable.
8. Accordingly, the order contained in Memo No.
15014/CISF/Disc-37/2013/671 dated 05.04.2013 passed by the
Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit, KBUNL, Kanti,
Muzaffarpur, order contained in Memo No. 15014/CISF/Disc-
37/2013/755 dated 22.04.2013 passed by the Deputy
Commandant, CISF Unit, KBUNL, Kanti, Muzaffarpur and the
Order No. 3307 dated 28.06.2013 passed by the Group
Commandant, CISF Group Head Quarters, East Zone, Patna
deserves to be set aside and are hereby set aside.
9. The petitioner shall be entitled to refund/payment
of the money/amount, which has been deducted on account of
the punishment awarded to him vide order dated 05.04.2013,
forthwith.
10. The writ petition is allowed in the
aforementioned terms.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18809 of 2013 dt.17-03-2026
8/8
11. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 24 .03.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…