Court Orders Reinstatement of Ravinder Kumar Rana with Full Benefits, Citing Procedural Flaws and Disproportionate Punishment
In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the removal of CISF Constable Ravinder Kumar Rana from service, citing the lack of reasoned evaluation and the disproportionate nature of the punishment imposed. The court ordered the reinstatement of Rana with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary and allowances, which shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date it became due till realization.
The case stems from disciplinary proceedings initiated against Rana, who was recruited in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in 1992 and later posted at various units, including the ONGC Nazira Unit. In June 1998, Rana was suspended on allegations of assaulting a superior officer, misbehavior, and habitual misconduct. An inquiry was conducted, and the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service in October 1998. Rana's appeal against this order was dismissed in May 1999, prompting him to challenge the decision in court.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil, presiding over the case, highlighted several procedural flaws in the inquiry process. The court noted that the inquiry officer overlooked material contradictions in witness statements and failed to include essential evidence, such as medical records, in the proceedings. Out of ten witnesses examined during the inquiry, six did not support the allegations against Rana, rendering the prosecution's case doubtful.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and proportionality in disciplinary proceedings. It observed that the punishment of removal was strikingly disproportionate to the charges alleged, especially given Rana's long-standing service record and recognition for meritorious work. The reliance on past minor disciplinary actions to establish habitual misconduct was deemed improper and arbitrary.
In its decision, the court drew upon established principles from Supreme Court cases, including Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reiterating that disciplinary proceedings are subject to judicial review to ensure they are not arbitrary, mala fide, or unsupported by evidence. The punishment must not be so disproportionate as to shock the conscience.
The judgment reflects the court's commitment to ensuring fairness and justice in service law matters, particularly within quasi-military forces such as the CISF. The decision is expected to have broader implications for similar cases, reinforcing the need for reasoned decision-making and proportional punishment in disciplinary actions.
Bottom Line:
Disciplinary proceedings in service matters should adhere to principles of natural justice and proportionality, and punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct alleged.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, CISF Rules, principles established in Supreme Court cases like Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh
