27 years after Bokaro Steel Plant theft, Jharkhand High Court steps in to save CISF constable from ‘harsh’ punishment

Constable removed over negligence

• The respondent was appointed as a CISF constable in 1985 and was posted at the Bokaro Steel Plant in 1997.
• On April 29, 1999, the constable was served a chargesheet alleging gross misconduct and dereliction of duty for failing to prevent the theft of approximately 100 kg of assorted MS (mild steel) items during his shift on the night of March 9-10 that year.
• Following an inquiry report that proved the charges, he was removed from service on October 25, 1999.
• After his internal appeals and revisions were rejected, he challenged the removal in the high court.
• In August 2021, a single judge quashed the removal order, directed his reinstatement, and remanded the matter back to the authorities to reconsider the quantum of punishment.
• The Union of India subsequently appealed this decision.
• Representing the central government, Additional Solicitor General of India Anil Kumar argued that the single judge had committed an error in re-appreciating the evidence, which it was precluded from doing.
• He further submitted that no procedural lapses have been noticed and the principle of natural justice has also been diligently followed.
• Appearing for the respondent constable, Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar argued that the single judge has taken into consideration the fact that a vague timing of theft was ascertained by the inquiry officer, which finds support from the charge against the constable.
• He further submitted that the punishment imposed upon the constable is harsh, considering the gravity of the charges as well as the imposition of a lesser punishment to the other delinquent employee.

‘Selectively given such gross punishment’

• The single judge in the 2021 order has delved into the timing of the theft and that it has not conclusively proved that the theft had taken place during the duty time of the petitioner.
• This has, however, been contradicted by the finding that the petitioner had left the post 15 minutes before his duty hour.
• A theft was committed during the duty hours of the petitioner, and re-appreciation of evidence in the backdrop of the procedural necessities having been followed diligently would be contrary to the law laid down in the case of P Gunasekaran.
• It appears that the petitioner has been selectively given such gross punishment.
• The punishment imposed should be in commensuration with the gravity of the offence and should also reflect other relevant considerations, as held in Coal India Limited.
• But neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority nor the revisional authority has embarked on such consideration.
• The single judge had rightly come to a conclusion directing the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order on the quantum of punishment.