Calcutta High Court Declares Disciplinary Action as ‘Shockingly Disproportionate’, Orders Reduction in Rank for Petitioner

Punishment of Removal from Service is Excessively Harsh – Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee
In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court has ruled that the disciplinary action of removing R. Kasivelu from service for an incident of scuffling with a colleague was excessively harsh. The Court ordered a substitution of the dismissal with a reduction in rank while ensuring continuity of service for retirement benefits without back-wages. The judgment, delivered by Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, emphasizes the necessity of proportionality in disciplinary actions within the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF).

R. Kasivelu, a Head Constable in the CISF, was involved in a scuffle with a colleague, Jaibir Singh, which resulted in the latter suffering a head injury. This incident, which occurred on September 1, 2003, led to disciplinary proceedings against Kasivelu. Despite his denials and requests to engage a defence representative, the enquiry officer concluded that Kasivelu was guilty, leading to his removal from service on March 8, 2004. Kasivelu’s appeals and revision petitions against the punishment were subsequently dismissed, prompting him to file the present writ petition challenging the legality of the disciplinary proceedings and the severity of the punishment.

The petitioner argued that he was denied a fair opportunity to engage his preferred defence representative, violating principles of natural justice. The Court noted that while the enquiry officer initially failed to notify the proposed defence representative, the representative ultimately did not appear on scheduled dates. The Court found this argument lacking merit, emphasizing that the onus was on the petitioner to provide alternative names if the initial choice was unavailable.

Justice Chatterjee highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary actions, focusing on ensuring that the decision-making process is free from arbitrariness, irrationality, and unreasonableness. The Court reaffirmed that judicial review does not entail re-evaluating evidence unless there is a clear indication of perversity or a lack of evidence. The Court found the enquiry process to be procedurally sound despite the petitioner’s claims of unfair treatment.

The Court critically assessed the severity of the punishment. Justice Chatterjee observed that the incident was a single, sudden altercation without premeditation. Given the lack of a justified rationale for such a severe punishment, the Court deemed the removal from service as shockingly disproportionate. The judgment underscored that disciplinary authorities must balance punishment with the gravity of the offense and consider rehabilitative measures where appropriate.

Justice Chatterjee remarked, “The punishment of removal from service is excessively severe and shockingly disproportionate, outrageous in defiance of logic.” The judgment further stated, “Such harsh penalties must be justified with reasoned explanations, particularly when the consequences extend beyond the individual to their dependents.”

The Calcutta High Court’s decision to set aside the dismissal and impose a lesser penalty of reduction in rank sends a strong message about the need for proportionality in disciplinary actions. By ensuring continuity of service for retirement benefits, the judgment provides a measure of relief to the petitioner while reinforcing principles of fairness and justice within the CISF. This landmark ruling is expected to influence future disciplinary proceedings, ensuring that punishments are commensurate with the misconduct.

Date of Decision: June 26, 2024