Observing that “review proceedings cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise”, the Telangana High Court on Tuesday quashed a single-judge bench’s order in favour of a former CISF constable and clarified that he is no longer entitled to any pensionary benefits typically associated with retirement.
The March 2025 order on a review petition had modified Kishan Kumar Azmeera’s original punishment of “removal from service” into “compulsory retirement from service” with consequential pensionary and retirement benefits. The Central Government and the Central Industrial Security Force challenged this order.
A division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin, restoring the original order of the single-judge in June 2018, stated that “a review court does not sit in appeal over its own judgment, nor can it re-hear the matter on merits merely because another view is possible. The object of review is only to correct a patent error and not to substitute a different opinion.”
Now 43 years old, Kishan Kumar Azmeera, from Warangal district, joined the CISF as a constable/sweeper in 1997. Throughout his service, he had a record of two major and six minor punishments for misconduct, primarily relating to unauthorised absence and overstay of leave. After failing to report for duty after a 13-day sanctioned leave in October 2011 and ignoring subsequent call-up notices, an ex parte departmental inquiry was conducted, leading to his removal from service on June 5, 2012.
While Azmeera’s statutory appeal and revision were dismissed by the appellate and revisional authorities, a writ petition he filed in 2013 before the high court was dismissed in June 2018 by a single-judge bench, which upheld the penalty of removal from service. However, in March 2025, the single-judge allowed a review petition, ruling that the punishment was disproportionate, given Azmeera’s 14 years of service, and accordingly modified the punishment to compulsory retirement from service with consequential pensionary benefits.
Before the division bench, the Centre argued that the single-judge exceeded the limited scope of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the power of review is permissible only when new and important evidence is present or any error apparent on the face of the record, neither of which was made out in the review petition.
Azmeera, appearing in person, submitted that his absence from duty was due to efforts to pursue higher education and emotional trauma following the sudden death of his brother, who was also in the CISF, and responsibilities towards his aged parents. He pleaded that he hailed from an impoverished family belonging to a Scheduled Tribe community and that the punishment had catastrophic consequences for his family.
‘Personal circumstances can’t override paramount need for discipline’
Story continues below this ad
After recording the submissions from both parties, the division bench noted that the power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC is a limited and exceptional jurisdiction. Citing precedents in various Supreme Court judgments, the bench noted that the grounds urged in the review petition (such as the alleged disproportionality of punishment, length of service, personal hardship, and socio-economic background of the respondent) were already urged and considered in the original writ petition and adjudicated in the original order of June 2018.
“While this Court is not insensitive to the respondent’s personal circumstances the factors such as, his tribal background, family tragedy etc., however compelling, cannot override the paramount need for discipline and accountability in an uniformed force,” the bench observed, while adding that Azmeera’s failure to respond to multiple notices and participate in the departmental proceedings demonstrated a wilful disregard.
The bench noted that the exercise of reappreciation and revaluation of facts, while allowing the review petition, and the substitution of a different view on the same material, was impermissible in review jurisdiction. Noting that the penalty of removal from service cannot be termed perverse or shockingly disproportionate in the context of a habitual offender in a disciplined force, the bench stated that “to allow personal hardships to routinely mitigate penalties for absenteeism would erode discipline and set an unworkable precedent for forces where presence and reliability are non-negotiable.”
The court stressed that the original order of 2018 had considered the respondent’s past service record, repeated acts of unauthorised absence, and the nature of duties in a disciplined force. It said that “mere formation of a different opinion on proportionality does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record”.
Story continues below this ad
The court opined that the error apparent must be obvious, and not one that requires a long-drawn process of reasoning or permits two plausible views. “In the present case, the question of proportionality of punishment necessarily involves an evaluative exercise, and a more sympathetic assessment cannot retrospectively render the earlier view erroneous in law.”
Noting that no new or additional material was placed before the court during the review, the division bench found the order on the review petition “travels beyond the permissible contours of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, and hence the order of March 2025 was unsustainable in law”.
The court also observed that discipline and availability are foundational to the CISF’s functioning; unauthorised absence, even for limited periods, has serious operational implications.
The original penalty of “removal from service” was restored, and Azmeera was disentitled to pensionary and retirement benefits.
