Accidental Firing Caused No Harm, Can't Invite Major Penalty: MP High Court Sets Aside CISF Constable's Punishment

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the "major penalty" imposed on a CISF constable over an accidental firearm discharge that caused no injury or damage, holding the punishment shockingly disproportionate to what was, on the department's own evidence, a bona fide human error.

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh was hearing a petition filed by N. P. Dwivedi, a CISF constable posted at the BHEL Unit, Bhopal, challenging the disciplinary order that reduced his pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect, along with the appellate and revisional orders upholding it.

The case arose from an incident on the intervening night of November 15/16, 2010. While reporting for his night shift and inspecting his issued INSAS rifle in the Kote verandah, one round was accidentally discharged, hitting the ceiling. It is undisputed that no one was hurt and nothing was damaged. The department initially treated the episode as an accident, recovering a token Rs. 18 as the penal cost of the cartridge, a payment the petitioner promptly deposited.

Despite this, a departmental enquiry later concluded that the constable had "deliberately inserted a loaded magazine and operated the trigger," holding gross negligence proved. On this basis, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a major penalty, and both his appeal and revision were dismissed.

Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner, Shri Utkarsh Agrawal along with Shri Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, argued that the finding of deliberate misconduct flew in the face of the evidence, since all ten prosecution witnesses, including co-duty personnel, had corroborated that the firing was accidental. It was also submitted that the petitioner had been made to work 12 to 14 hour shifts in violation of a CISF circular against continuous 12-hour duty, and was under acute personal stress, with his father undergoing cancer treatment, his daughter living with a 40% disability, and a housing loan deadline looming. Shri Shrikrishna Sharma, for the respondents, defended the enquiry as procedurally fair and argued that firing a weapon without reason was a grave lapse for a paramilitary force, adding that the authorities had already shown leniency by not opting for dismissal or removal.

The Court found the Enquiry Officer's conclusion legally unsustainable, observing that "there is absolutely no evidence to support the subjective conclusion of deliberate defiance or willful sabotage," and that treating an admitted accident as deliberate gross negligence was "legally perverse." Having already penalised the petitioner for the cartridge as an accident, using the same incident to impose a major, career-altering penalty, it noted, reflected a "vindictive and disproportionate approach."

Invoking the doctrine of proportionality, the Court held that "the sledgehammer of a major penalty should not be used to crack the nut of a bona fide human error," and that where no harm has occurred, disciplinary action should be "corrective and redressive, rather than vindictive." Relying on a coordinate bench's ruling in Ravi Saxena v. State of M.P. and Supreme Court precedents including B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that findings no reasonable authority could have reached on the record are open to judicial interference, even in force discipline matters.

The Court also examined Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 2001, classifying penalties as major or minor. A reduction in pay with cumulative effect, postponing future increments, it noted, squarely falls within the major category, unlike a similar reduction without cumulative effect, which the Rules treat as minor. Given the incident caused no casualties and no property loss, the Court held that a minor penalty would have adequately met the ends of justice, without permanently damaging the petitioner's pay progression and career prospects over an unintended lapse.

Quashing the disciplinary, appellate and revisional orders, the Court remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to decide the quantum of punishment afresh, restricting it to a minor penalty and directing that consequential benefits, including restored pay and arrears, be extended to the petitioner within 90 days.

Case Title: N. P. Dwivedi vs. Union of India & Others

Date of Order: August 25, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh