WA/277/2025 of PRADYUMNA KUMAR MOHANTY Vs UNION OF INDIA on 25 June 2026

ORDER

25.06.2026

01. Appellant-delinquent employee, who has been dismissed from service on the proven misconduct of the grave nature, is assailing a learned Single Judge’s order dated 17.12.2024, whereby his W.P.(C) No.18971 of 2013 has been negatived.

2. Learned Counsel, Mr. Mohanty appearing for the Appellant vehemently argued the following two points for such assailment: i. The order of punishment of grave nature would not have been handed without giving an opportunity of hearing as to the quantum of punishment, this being imperative of principles of natural justice. ii. In more or less similar case, the Apex Court has downsized the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement and therefore, the same thing should be made in this case as well.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant and having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

3.1. Rule 34 of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Conduct Rules, 2001 specifically excludes any opportunity of hearing being given to the delinquent employee for awarding the punishment, once the charges are proved. That Rule is not assailed before us. Even otherwise, the Rule is consistent with the spirit of 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India, which dispensed with second show cause notice as to the levy of punishment under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The principles of natural justice are not an unruly harsh. They are regulated by statute. The subject Rules have been promulgated under the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Rules, 1968. Where statute operates the principles of natural justice have to yield place vide Apex Court decision in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant pressed into service the decision of Apex Court in Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. vs B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 165 in support of his contention that the requirement of principles of natural justice that the disciplinary authority, who is acting on the proven misconduct, has to give a proposal notice of punishment to have the say of the delinquent. Such a ratio does not emerge from the said decision. It only said that serving a copy of the enquiry report on the delinquent employee is a must and nothing beyond.

5. The second contention as to the parity of treatment founded on the decision of the Apex Court in Central Industrial Security

Force Vs. Abrar Ali, AIR 2017 SC 200 will not come to the aid of the Appellant, inasmuch as the fact matrix of the said case is miles away from that of the Appellant here. It hardly needs to be stated that a decision is an Authority for the proposition that is laid down in a given fact matrix and not for all that which would logically follow from what has been so laid down, said Lord Halsbury in Quinn v Leathem [1901] AC 495 (HL). This reasoning having animated the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, the same becomes inexplicable.

In view of the above, the Appeal being thoroughly devoid of merits, is liable to be rejected in limine and accordingly it is.

Registry to send a copy of this order to the Respondents by Speed Post immediately.

(Krishna S. Dixit)

Judge

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

AK Pradhan/Priyanka Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYANKA BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 18:17:30 Signature Not Verified