Jharkhand High Court Upholds CISF Constable’s Pay Reduction, Dismisses Challenge to Disciplinary Proceedings; Reiterates Limited Scope of Judicial Review in Absence of Procedural Illegality or Pervers
W.P.(S) No. 5079 of 2015
By Navya Tiwari
In Balwan Singh v. Union of India & Others (2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3682), decided on 1 December 2025, the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, per Justice Deepak Roshan, dismissed a writ petition filed by a CISF constable challenging disciplinary action that resulted in reduction of his pay. The petitioner had sought quashing of the revisional order dated 14.11.2014 passed by the Director General, CISF, which had affirmed the appellate order dated 13.09.2013, and had also prayed for consequential monetary benefits.
The matter arose out of departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner in February 2013, when a charge memo was served upon him on 21.02.2013. He submitted his reply within time, following which an inquiry officer was appointed. The inquiry was conducted under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2003, and after submission of the inquiry report on 27.04.2013, the petitioner filed his written defence. Upon consideration of the material on record and the petitioner’s response to the second show cause, the Commandant, CISF, CTPS Chandrapura, Bokaro, imposed a major penalty on 14.05.2013. The punishment entailed reduction of pay to the minimum stage in the pay band of Constable (GD) for a period of three years, with denial of increments during that period and postponement of future increments; the suspension period from 18.02.2013 to 18.03.2013 was directed to be treated as such for all purposes.
Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 01.07.2013 before the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Patliputra. The appellate authority, by order dated 13.09.2013, modified the punishment by reducing it to a one-stage reduction in pay (from ₹7830 + GP ₹2000 to ₹7540 + GP ₹2000) for three years with cumulative effect, while retaining the directions regarding denial of increments during the period and postponement of future increments. A revision petition filed thereafter on 23.07.2014 was dismissed on 14.11.2014 by the Director General, CISF, thereby affirming the modified punishment, which led to the present writ proceedings.
Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that the appellate and revisional authorities had failed to properly consider his reply to the show cause notice and the statements of witnesses, which, according to him, indicated that the incident occurred in a spur of the moment. It was further argued that he had been unfairly singled out and made a scapegoat while others allegedly involved were not proceeded against. The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the inquiry had been conducted strictly in accordance with procedure, that the petitioner had been afforded full opportunity at every stage, and that the punishment, in fact, stood mitigated in appeal. Reliance was placed on State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj (2020) to emphasise that the scope of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process and does not extend to reappreciation of evidence.
Upon consideration of the record, the Court found that the petitioner’s principal contention of being made a scapegoat had not been raised at the appropriate stages, namely in his reply to the second show cause or in the memorandum of appeal. The Court further observed that the inquiry had been conducted after granting full opportunity to the petitioner, with examination of witnesses, and there was no procedural irregularity or violation of principles of natural justice. The disciplinary authority had taken into account the petitioner’s defence before imposing the penalty, and the appellate authority had applied its mind to the matter and reduced the severity of punishment. The revisional authority had thereafter rightly upheld the modified order.
Reiterating the settled position on judicial review, the Court held that it does not sit as an appellate authority over departmental proceedings and is concerned only with the fairness of the procedure and the existence of some evidence supporting the findings. In the absence of perversity, procedural illegality, or violation of natural justice, no interference was warranted. Finding no error either on merits or in the decision-making process, the Court dismissed the writ petition, declined to grant any relief, made no order as to costs, and closed any pending interlocutory applications.
