Authority: Calcutta High Court, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Order Date: 15 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Constable Amresh Kumar, enrolled in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on 04‑07‑1994, with ten performance rewards during his service.
  • Respondents: Union of India & others (representing CISF).
  • Nature of proceedings: Writ petition (WPA 23103 of 2015) seeking a mandamus direction to quash Order No. 3325 dated 28‑09‑2013 (issued by Group Commander, Guwahati) which imposed compulsory retirement with pension benefits and sought reinstatement with back‑salary.
  • Incident background: On 04‑02‑2013 at ~20:50 hrs, while on night shift at WTP Post, the petitioner quarrelled with Constable B. Shekhar (who had just completed an “A” shift). The dispute, rooted in a personal issue about previous postings, escalated to a physical scuffle; Shekhar sustained a fracture to his ring finger. The petitioner allegedly picked up his service rifle after Shekhar picked up a wood‑cutter (DAB).
  • Documentation of incident: General Diary Entry No. 797 (WTP Post, 21:30 hrs) and GD Entry No. 178 (CISF Control Room, 21:40 hrs). Both officers were charged with undisciplined activities.
  • Charge memo: No. V‑150 Maj‑10/GHG/L&R/2013‑2133 dated 01‑07‑2013 framed two charges – (I) misconduct, gross negligence, indiscipline on 04‑06‑2013; (II) prior record of 12 punishments and failure to amend conduct.
  • Departmental enquiry: Ordered on 19‑07‑2013; Enquiry Officer D.K. Nath and Presenting Officer SI Akhilesh Kumar recorded statements of six prosecution witnesses. Findings dated 21‑08‑2013 held both charges proved; both petitioner and Shekhar found guilty of quarrelling.
  • Disciplinary authority order: No. V‑15014/Maj‑10/GHG/L&R/2013‑3325 dated 28‑09‑2013 imposed compulsory retirement under Rule 34 of CISF Rules, 2001; corrected by Corrigendum No. V‑15014/Maj‑10/GHG/L&R/2013‑3720 dated 29‑10‑2013.
  • Subsequent appeals: Statutory appeal filed on 09‑10‑2013 before DIG, CISF, North Eastern Zone – dismissed on 28‑02‑2014 (No. V‑11014/Appeal‑29/AK/Adm‑II/NEZ/2013/1981). Revisional remedy under Rule 54 before Inspector General, CISF, NSE/NEZ – rejected on 27‑07‑2014.
  • Petitioner’s arguments: Claimed innocence, lack of direct evidence, reliance on hearsay, absence of medical report, alleged violation of Article 20(2) (double jeopardy), undefined term “misconduct” in CISF Rules, and that past punishments should not influence present penalty.
  • Respondents’ arguments: Past conduct was expressly part of Charge‑II, giving the petitioner notice; Supreme Court precedent (Union of India v. Subrata Nath) allows consideration of prior conduct when framed as a separate charge; prosecution witnesses gave eye‑witness testimony; the disciplinary authority acted within law.
  • Court’s analysis: Recognised that the court does not re‑appreciate evidence unless the enquiry is perverse or violates natural justice. Found the enquiry procedurally sound, evidence of quarrel established, and past punishments validly incorporated in the charge sheet. Determined that reliance on prior conduct did not amount to double jeopardy because it was part of the charge and the petitioner had opportunity to respond.
  • Legal precedents cited: State of Assam v. J.N. Roy Biswas; T.P. Gopalakkrishnan v. State of Kerala; Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu; Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police; Union of India v. Subrata Nath; among others.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court dismissed WPA 23103 of 2015 without costs, upheld Order No. V‑15014/Maj‑10/GHG/L&R/2013‑3325 (compulsory retirement) and its corrigendum, and affirmed the appellate and revisional orders.
  • The interim order, if any, was vacated.
  • The petitioner's subsequent prayer for a four‑week stay of the judgment was considered and rejected.

Topics: Court Judgment, Disciplinary Action