The High Court of Manipur has quashed the dismissal of a CISF constable, holding that the disciplinary authority's subjective satisfaction under Rule 39(ii) of the CISF Rules, 2001 to dispense with a departmental enquiry must be founded on objective material and cannot rest on mere ipse dixit. The Court found the reasons recorded - that the constable intimidated witnesses - unsupported by evidence, especially since superior officers were present and later testified in criminal proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Tensubam Khomei Singh, a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) bearing CISF No. 964651076, was posted at CISF Unit Oil Duliajan, Assam. He was dismissed from service by order dated 25-09-2009 without a departmental enquiry, purportedly under Rule 39(ii) of the CISF Rules, 2001. The statutory appeal against the dismissal was rejected by the appellate authority on 30-12-2009. The petitioner challenged both orders before the High Court of Manipur.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was serving as a Constable at CISF Unit Oil Duliajan, Assam during 2007-2009
- On 17-09-2009, while detailed for duty, the Assistant Commandant and an Inspector conducted a surprise check and found the petitioner and another Constable absent from their post, smoking and sitting with arms and ammunition while under the influence of alcohol
- During briefing, the petitioner cocked his rifle, aimed it at the Assistant Commandant, and threatened fellow personnel
- The Personal Security Officer intervened; during the struggle the petitioner fired four rounds, one bullet hitting the left thigh of the Assistant Commandant's driver
- The petitioner was overpowered and arms deposited in the unit Kote
- Criminal proceedings were initiated via FIR; the petitioner was ultimately acquitted
- Dismissal order dated 25-09-2009 issued without departmental enquiry under Rule 39(ii) CISF Rules, 2001
- Statutory appeal rejected by appellate authority order dated 30-12-2009
- Authorities wrote letters dated 03-03-2010 and 23-04-2010 to petitioner's wife informing of appeal rejection and right to file revision within six months
- Representation dated 30-04-2014 and reminder dated 16-07-2014 submitted to DG CISF seeking revocation of dismissal; no disposal on record
- Petitioner and wife are residents of Imphal East District, Manipur; appeal rejection communicated to Manipur address
Procedural History
- 14-02-2023: High Court (Single Judge) allowed writ petition, quashed dismissal and appellate orders, directed reinstatement with consequential benefits
- 12-09-2023: Division Bench in WA No. 57 of 2023 allowed respondents' appeal, remanded matter with liberty to petitioner to amend prayer to challenge both disciplinary and appellate orders
- Post-remand: Petitioner filed recast petition challenging both orders dated 25-09-2009 and 30-12-2009
- 28-07-2026: Final hearing before Single Judge
- 10-08-2026: Judgment delivered allowing writ petition
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the dismissal order dated 25-09-2009 and appellate order dated 30-12-2009, reinstatement in service with full back wages and all consequential service benefits.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the High Court of Manipur has territorial jurisdiction when the cause of action arose partly in Manipur; (2) Whether the writ petition is maintainable without exhausting the statutory revision remedy under Section 9(2-A) of the CISF Act, 1968 and Rule 54 of the CISF Rules, 2001; (3) Whether the disciplinary authority's satisfaction under Rule 39(ii) to dispense with departmental enquiry was based on relevant and sufficient material.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Senior Advocate, submitted that dismissal without departmental enquiry violated Rule 36, 37 and 38 of the CISF Rules, 2001 and Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The sole reason for dispensing with enquiry - that the petitioner created fear among witnesses - was baseless as multiple superior officers (Assistant Commandant, Inspector, PSO, Driver) were eyewitnesses and a mere Constable could not intimidate them. All four testified in the criminal trial. The authorities invoked Rule 39(ii) arbitrarily without initiating any proceeding or framing charges. Reliance was placed on Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab (1991) 1 SCC 362 and Chief Security Officer v. Singasan Rabi Das (1991) 1 SCC 729 where the Supreme Court held that fear of witness intimidation must be substantiated by material, not mere assertion.
For the Respondent
Mr. W. Darakeshwor, Senior Panel Counsel, raised two preliminary objections: (a) Territorial jurisdiction - all incidents occurred in Assam, dismissal order issued at Duliajan, so Manipur HC lacks jurisdiction under Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 329; (b) Non-exhaustion of statutory remedy - revision petition available under Section 9(2-A) CISF Act and Rule 54 CISF Rules was not filed, citing Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes AIR 1964 SC 1419 and Roshan Thakuri v. Union of India 2017-I-LLJ-606 (Megh). On merits, counsel argued Rule 39(ii) empowers disciplinary authority to dismiss without enquiry if satisfied it is not reasonably practicable; reasons recorded in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the dismissal order are sufficient. Judicial review is limited - court cannot re-evaluate material or substitute its opinion, relying on Manojit Ghosh v. Union of India 2012 SCC Online Del 888, Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel AIR 1985 SC 1416, Union of India v. Balbir Singh (1998) 5 SCC 216, and Sahadeo Singh v. Union of India (2003) 9 SCC 75.
The Court's Analysis
On territorial jurisdiction, the Court held that cause of action arose partly in Manipur. The petitioner and his wife are residents of Imphal East District; the appellate order dated 30-12-2009 was communicated to the petitioner at his Manipur address through registered post. Applying Nawal Kishore Sharma, the Court interpreted Article 226(2) to allow jurisdiction where cause of action arises wholly or partly within the court's territory, assigning the same meaning as Section 20(c) CPC.
On exhaustion of statutory remedy, the Court found that after the petitioner's acquittal, a representation dated 30-04-2014 was submitted to the DG CISF - the superior authority to both disciplinary and appellate authorities - under Rule 54 of the CISF Rules, 2001. Rule 54 empowers any superior authority to call for records and revise orders. The DG CISF had the power to entertain this representation. Since the authorities themselves informed the petitioner's wife of the revision remedy, and the petitioner approached the competent superior authority, the writ petition was maintainable.
On merits, the Court examined paragraphs 7 and 8 of the dismissal order. Paragraph 7 alleged the petitioner created fear by instigating and threatening fellow personnel. Paragraph 8 claimed a palpable sense of fear among witnesses with no one willing to depose. The Court found these reasons unsupported by material. At the time of the incident, eyewitnesses included the Assistant Commandant, Inspector, PSO, and Driver - at least two being high-ranking officers. The petitioner, a mere Constable, had been suspended. The Court failed to understand how he could intimidate superior officers. Crucially, all four CISF personnel testified as prosecution witnesses in the criminal trial (seven witnesses examined total). This directly contradicted the claim that witnesses were unwilling to depose.
The Court distinguished respondents' cited precedents. Tulsiram Patel requires the disciplinary authority's satisfaction to be based on objective facts, not whim. Balbir Singh permits review for malafides or wholly extraneous grounds. Sahadeo Singh involved witnesses genuinely fearing for their lives from desperate miscreants - factually distinct. The Court invoked U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey (2007) 11 SCC 92: a decision is authority only for what it actually decides; ratio must be understood in factual context; circumstantial flexibility means one different fact alters conclusions.
"The subjective satisfaction recorded in paragraphs 7 & 8 of the impugned dismissal order is contrary to the materials available on record and the said reasons are not fortified by any independent material to justify the dispensing of the enquiry envisaged under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules."
The Court concluded there was total absence of sufficient material or good grounds for dispensing with the enquiry; the reasons were totally insufficient in law.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 25-09-2009 (dismissal) and 30-12-2009 (appellate rejection). The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with all consequential benefits. Parties to bear their own costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Subjective Satisfaction Must Be Objectively Founded
The disciplinary authority's satisfaction under Rule 39(ii) CISF Rules (analogous to Article 311(2) proviso) cannot rest on bare assertions. The Court must be able to verify from record that circumstances genuinely made enquiry impracticable. Where superior officers are eyewitnesses and later testify, a claim that a subordinate intimidated them into silence is inherently implausible without corroborating material.
Territorial Jurisdiction: Communication of Adverse Order Creates Cause of Action
For service matters, cause of action under Article 226(2) arises partly where the adverse order is communicated to the employee. Practitioners should ensure the communication address and receipt are on record to establish High Court jurisdiction even if the disciplinary proceedings occurred elsewhere.
Statutory Remedy Not Exhausted If Superior Authority Approached
Where the statute provides a revision mechanism before a superior authority (here DG CISF under Rule 54), and the aggrieved employee approaches that authority with a representation, the writ petition is not barred by non-exhaustion. The key is whether the alternative remedy was actually invoked before the competent forum, not merely whether a formal revision petition was filed.
Precedents Must Be Factually Congruent
Courts will not apply precedents mechanically. Sahadeo Singh (witnesses fearing death from miscreants) was distinguished from a case where superior officers themselves witnessed the incident and testified. Practitioners must demonstrate factual alignment or distinction when citing authority on dispensation of enquiry.
