Security breach at Rourkela Steel Plant: Why Orissa High Court refused to save CISF constable who let ‘vehicles slip in’

Case of negligence, misconduct

• The petitioner, Karambir Singh, was serving as a head constable at the steel plant in December 2019 when the incident in question allegedly took place.
• In December 2019, while Singh was deployed at the traffic gate to ensure physical checking and security of vehicles, two vehicles entered the plant premises without any documentation or physical verification.
• These vehicles were later intercepted while attempting to load industrial slabs with the help of an unidentified crane operator.
• Following an inquiry, Singh was found guilty of gross negligence, misconduct, and active connivance in a potential misappropriation of government property.

• Consequently, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment involving the reduction of the CISF jawan’s pay by three stages (from Rs 41,600 to Rs 38,100) for three years, with a further directive that he would not earn increments during this period and that the reduction would postpone future increments.
• Singh challenged the punishment through appellate and revisional authorities, both of which upheld the initial order.
• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Sagarika Sahoo argued that if the CCTV footage of the entire incident is looked into by this court, the petitioner will not be held guilty at all, and the punishment so imposed in the proceeding will not hold good.
• She further stated that even though the petitioner made an application to get the CCTV footage of the alleged incident, the same was never provided to him.

Justice Biraja P Satapathy heard the matter on March 6. (Image enhanced using AI)

State’s stand

• Appearing for the state, the deputy solicitor general of India, P K Parhi, submitted that during his duty period, two vehicles entered the plant premises without physical checking and documentation.
• He further submitted that those vehicles, when they tried to load the slab with the help of an unidentified crane operator, and the same came to the knowledge of an official of the Rourkela Steel Plant, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the inspector of the steel plant’s CISF unit, against the driver and helper of both vehicles.
• He stated that because of the negligence on the part of the petitioner, two vehicles entered into the plant premises without physical checking and documentation. The said misconduct of the petitioner is not only serious but also violative of the conduct of service rules.
• He further argued that even though the petitioner moved the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority by filing the appeal and revision against such order of punishment, such appeal and revision filed by the petitioner were rejected by the appellate authority.

‘Punishment in accordance with provisions’

• On the face of the enquiry report, the petitioner was issued with the show-cause notice, and after receipt of the reply, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment.
• After going through the materials available on record, the high court is of the view that the proceeding has been conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions contained under Rule 36 (procedure for imposing major penalties) of the CISF Rules, 2001, and the petitioner has been provided with due opportunity of hearing all through.
• The decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner do not apply to the facts of the present case.
• The court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of punishment so passed against the petitioner and the subject matter of challenge in the petition.