Bombay High Court Denies Relief To CISF Constable Found Sleeping On Duty

Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The high court called the petition devoid of merits and dismissed the petition. The court said that the petitioner was a member of a disciplined force entrusted to guard a plant of public importance and he was found to be in deep slumber while on night duty.

A Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja has denied relief to a Central Industrial Security Force constable who was found sleeping on duty.

The petitioner was dismissed from the services by the disciplinary authority by an order dated 22nd March 2021. The petitioner had then preferred an appeal against the order and the appellate authority confirmed the order on 1st July 2021. The petitioner then filed a revision application and the revisional authority also confirmed the order of the appellate authority.

The petitioner was also charged with other 7 minor punishments and 1 major punishment. However, he was issued warnings by the disciplinary authority. Further, while dismissing the petitioner the adjudicating authority had said that the petitioner was a habitual offender.

The petitioner was found sleeping on duty by the Deputy Commandant (PW1) and another constable(PW3). Both of them were the prosecution witness in the case.

The petitioner tried to make out a case of ill-will and bias of PW1 against himself. However, the bench rejected the argument and said that the same was not raised before the revisional authority or the appellate authority by the petitioner. The Court also rejected the argument that PW3 was acting under the pressure and influence of PW1 and both of them had cooked up the story of the petitioner falling asleep on duty.

The petitioner then argued that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by him. The bench rejected his arguments and said that:

“We have found from the defense statement of the petitioner to the charge sheet that no case has been made out that for reasons beyond his control the petitioner fell asleep. If indeed that were the case, a sympathetic view could have been taken. However, the facts found to be proved are quite glaring. The petitioner, a member of a disciplined force entrusted to guard a plant of public importance, was found to be in deep slumber while on night duty. This was not the solitary case of negligence on the part of the petitioner while discharging his official duty”

The bench further said the finding that the petitioner is a habitual offender is not perverse on facts and circumstances. The court said,

“The second charge refers to the previous six instances when the petitioner was found to be negligent in the discharge of his duty and was let off with warnings by the disciplinary authority who took a lenient view of the misconduct committed by him. Hence, the finding that the petitioner was a ‘habitual offender’ cannot be said to be a perverse finding, on facts and in the circumstances.”

The Court then dismissed the petition calling it devoid of merits.