THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
Ranchi, Jan 21: In a recent order, the Jharkhand High Court clarified that the previous exemplary conduct of an officer cannot serve as a basis for altering the severity of a punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority, a decision later upheld by both the appellate authority and a single-judge bench.
The High Court was considering an appeal filed by a former Assistant Commandant of CISF, BSL, who had been accused of making comments about the caste of an inspector posted in his office.
The case was heard by a bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary in the Jharkhand High Court.
During the proceedings, the court stated that it could not overlook the fact that the appellant was an employee of CISF, a disciplined force. The court emphasized that when the allegations are serious, as in the present case, leniency is not warranted.
Also Read- SC dismisses Jharkhand govt’s plea in Deoghar airport case
Case background
The appellant, while serving as an Assistant Commandant in CISF, was accused of committing misconduct in 2008 by making comments about the caste (SC) of an inspector in front of an ASI.
In 2009, the appellant again made an insulting and intimidating comment with the intention of humiliating the same person, referring to his caste in front of another ASI.
The appellant retired from CISF, but was informed that an inquiry would continue against him even after his retirement, under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Challenging the charge memo and initiation of departmental action, the appellant filed a petition. The allegations against the appellant were proven, and a penalty was imposed, which included a 20% deduction from his monthly pension on a permanent basis and the forfeiture of his entire gratuity. Following this, the appellant filed a departmental appeal, but it was dismissed.
Also Read- Min. temp. witnesses rise across Jharkhand
His appeal against the order of the appellate authority was also dismissed. Following this, the single bench’s order was challenged in the double bench.
The words ‘gross misconduct’ used in the charge memo also imply that the misconduct is of a ‘serious’ nature, meaning it is of an extremely grave nature. The appellant cannot benefit from the absence of the term ‘serious misconduct’ in the charge memo. In this regard, Rajni Kant Patra had filed a petition in the High Court.
