IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.15717 of 2010 Between: Vipin Kumar S/o. Balam Singh …. Petitioner AND The Union of India, Rep. By its Deputy Inspector of General, Central Industrial Security Force and another …. Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.15717 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is instituted by a Head Constable of the Central Industrial Security Force (henceforth referred to as ‘CISF’) Unit, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. It was alleged that while he was on duty on 09-11-2009, he has unauthorizedly allowed certain ladies and children inside the steel plant without any valid passes being held by them. These unauthorized persons were noticed, traveling in a Tipper inside the plant, by the Commandant of CISF Unit at the Steel Plant, who took them out and ensured that they go out of the plant. Hence, the writ petitioner has been placed under suspension for this and other related incidents. For a person occupying the rank of Head Constable, the Assistant Commandant of the Force will be the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the Assistant Commandant has issued a Charge Memorandum, dated 21-11-2009, specifically alleging and framing two counts of charges against the writ petitioner. Subsequently, the Inspector of the Fire Branch of the force has been appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into these charges. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact, enquiry was completed and, at that stage, the impugned order has been passed by the DIG, Southern Zone of the Force at Chennai, cancelling the earlier charge memorandum, dated 21-11-2009, issued by the Assistant Commandant of the Force. Now, through the memorandum, dated 10-06-2010, the same set of allegations, which were levelled against the writ petitioner earlier, were once again levelled as charges against the petitioner. In Annexure – III to the charge memo, while furnishing the list of witnesses through whom the articles of charges were sought to be sustained, Sri M. Nandan, Commandant, CISF Unit, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant has been cited as the first witness. It is urged that the disciplinary proceedings can be brought to an end either accepting or rejecting the enquiry officer’s report, but a fresh enquiry cannot be conducted again. It was also urged that since the witnesses have already been examined, there is scope for them to improve upon their statements and fill up the gaps, which were noticed in their depositions earlier. 3. Entertaining this writ petition on 06-07-2010, while ordering status quo to be maintained existing as on that day, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was directed to produce the record. Accordingly, the record has been produced today by the learned Standing Counsel for the Force. 4. It is pointed out that for a Head Constable of the Force, the Assistant Commandant of the Force will be the disciplinary authority and the Commandant of the Force will be the appellate authority and the DIG of the Force will be the revisional authority. But, in the instant case, one of the witnesses, namely Sri M. Nandan was occupying the rank of a Commandant. Hence, a doubt was entertained by the Force as to whether the Assistant Commandant could have discharged the functions of the disciplinary authority in the instant case, without leaving any doubt in the mind of the writ petitioner about the impartiality of the proceedings. Therefore, the Inspector General at the Headquarters of the Force has tendered an advise that wherever the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority is not able to discharge the functions as such, it would be appropriate to ask the next superior authority to function as the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority, as the case may be. Therefore, the impugned order has now been passed by the DIG of the Southern Zone of the Force cancelling the earlier charge memorandum, dated 29-11-2009, issued by the Assistant Commandant. It was, perhaps, considered that it is not appropriate to retain the Assistant Commandant as a disciplinary authority, as one of the witnesses, that is being examined at the enquiry, is a person occupying superior status than the Assistant Commandant himself. 6. To my mind, the action of the DIG in canceling the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commandant of the Force appears to be fair and reasonable. The rationale behind the principle that justice is not only be done, but must appear to have been done is attracted in the instant case. The petitioner occupying the rank of Head Constable will have a lurking fear in his mind as to how far the disciplinary authority, namely the Assistant Commandant of the Force, would be independent and impartial in his assessment of the evidence that was brought on record in the disciplinary proceedings, before imposing an appropriate or suitable punishment. The apprehension that would weigh heavily on the mind of the writ petitioner would be that whatever the Commandant has spoken to, would be taken as the absolute truth without verifying and testifying it from the angle of propriety before its acceptance by an Assistant Commandant. Therefore, cancellation of the earlier disciplinary action, pursuant to the charge memorandum, dated 29-11-2009, does not appear to be an irrational exercise. This is not one case where the findings of the enquiry officer have prompted any such action. On the other hand, the very propriety of allowing an Assistant Commandant to function as a disciplinary authority wherein a Commandant of the Force has been examined as a witness, obviously weighed with the respondents. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the impugned exercise. This is not a case where repeated enquiries are sought to be conducted against the same individual into the same set of allegations. On the other hand, with a view to hold the scales even, the fact situation available on record has compelled the earlier disciplinary proceedings to be cancelled, right at this stage. Therefore, no exception can be drawn to the present impugned order passed on 10-06-2010 by the DIG, Southern Zone of the Force. 7. However, it would be important to notice that one of the witnesses sought to be examined being an officer occupying the rank of a Commandant, it would also be appropriate that the enquiry officer should be of the same rank as that of a Commandant. Instead of appointing an officer, who occupies a lesser rank than that of a Commandant, it would be therefore, appropriate for the DIG of the Force to appoint any other officer occupying the rank of a Commandant to act as an enquiry officer, in the instant case. Similarly, since the necessary enquiry has been conducted once before and, perhaps, the access to the witnesses or the evidence in the form of record cannot be gained easily by the writ petitioner, the DIG of the Force would explore the feasibility of reinstating the petitioner back to duty and posting him to a different Unit than Visakhapatnam Steel Plant during the pendency of the disciplinary action now initiated. 8. The writ petitioner is accorded 15 days time from today to file his detailed reply to the charge memo dated 10-06-2010, based upon which, the necessary follow up action would be initiated by the respondents. 9. The Writ Petition is disposed of as indicated supra. No costs. ___________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J July 13, 2010. KTL