The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has set aside a major disciplinary penalty imposed on a CISF constable after his service rifle accidentally fired while he was inspecting it before a night shift. The Court held that the departmental authorities had failed to properly consider the evidence and mitigating circumstances.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh delivered the judgment on August 25, 2026, in a writ petition filed by N. P. Dwivedi against the Union of India and others.
Background of the Case
Dwivedi, who had been appointed as a CISF constable in 1991 and was posted at the BHEL Unit in Bhopal, was preparing to begin his night duty on November 15, 2010. While checking his INSAS rifle in the unit armoury area, one round was fired and struck the ceiling.
The record showed that nobody was injured and there was no damage to property. The incident was entered in the General Diary. Initially, the department treated it as an accidental firing and recovered Rs. 18 from Dwivedi towards the cost of the cartridge.
A departmental inquiry was later initiated on allegations including gross negligence and careless handling of the weapon. Although ten prosecution witnesses were examined, the Enquiry Officer concluded that Dwivedi had deliberately inserted a loaded magazine and operated the trigger.
The disciplinary authority subsequently reduced his pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect, meaning the punishment would also postpone future increments. His appeal and revision were dismissed.
Court’s Observation
The High Court found serious problems with the departmental findings. It noted that the prosecution witnesses themselves supported the account that the firing occurred accidentally while Dwivedi was checking his weapon.
“There is absolutely no evidence to support the subjective conclusion of deliberate defiance or willful sabotage.”
The Court also noted that the department had initially described the incident as “accidental firing” while recovering the cost of the cartridge. It found that the later major punishment had failed to properly account for this earlier treatment of the incident.
The Court further considered the evidence of the co-duty personnel, who stated that the firing occurred during inspection and caused no loss of life, injury or property damage.
Decision
The Court held that the major penalty was disproportionate in the circumstances and that the authorities had failed to adequately consider the mitigating factors.
“The imposition of a Major Penalty for an admitted accidental error causing no harm is legally unsustainable.”
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the disciplinary, appellate and revisional orders. It sent the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration of the punishment, directing that any fresh punishment must be minor and not major.
The Court also ordered restoration and calculation of consequential service benefits, including pay, increments and arrears, within 90 days.
Case Details
- Case Title: N. P. Dwivedi v. Union of India & Others
- Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2511 of 2012
- Judge: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
- Decision Date: August 25, 2026
