Reduction of pay-scale is upheld for CISF constable found absent from camp and causing civilian agitation

A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar heard an appeal by a CISF constable challenging disciplinary punishment imposed for alleged unauthorised absence, trespass and conduct unbecoming a member of a disciplined force. The appellant challenged the disciplinary and appellate orders and the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court which had dismissed his writ petition.

The Court dismissed the civil appeal and upheld the High Court's conclusion that, while the appellant had been granted an out-pass to visit a hospital, he was found about 12 kilometres from the camp at a residential colony and had been detained by civilians after engaging in unwarranted activity that agitated the local populace. The Court accepted the Appellate Authority’s reduction of the original penalty and found the modified penalty to be commensurate with the misconduct. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Undisputedly, the appellant was issued an out-pass on 27.08.1995 to enable him to visit the hospital between 10:00 AM to 12:00 noon on that day. Instead of visiting the hospital, the appellant was found at the residential colony at a distance about 12 kms from his Camp. The appellant in his deposition was unable to produce any document with regard to his visit to the hospital. He admitted that he had visited the residential colony to enquire about the quarters allotted to another constable. He further admitted that he had been confined by the civilians at the residential colony and it was only after the arrival of his superior, Inspector Lakra who had assured the gathering that departmental inquiry would be held against the appellant was he permitted to go. The High Court rightly found that the first charge that the appellant had left the camp without prior permission had not been proved. It however found that though the first limb of charge No. 1 was not established, the other limb of the said charge read with charge No. 2 had been proved. It was factually found that the appellant was at a distance of about 12 kms from the Camp instead of the hospital and that he had been detained by civilians on account of indulging in some unwarranted activity. Though it was held that there was no evidence of trespass into the family quarter of Mr. Jhan Mohammed, the fact that the appellant was permitted to leave only after intervention of his superiors who had assured departmental action against him was sufficient to hold that the appellant had indulged in some unwarranted activity by which the civilians were agitated thereby affecting the reputation of the Force amongst the civilians. The penalty as modified by the Appellate Authority of reducing his pay-scale by one stage for a period of two years from 01.02.1998 and depriving him of any increment during the period of reduction was found to be commensurate with the wrong committed.” The Court also noted that “we do not find that this is a fit case to exercise discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”

Background The appellant, a constable of the Central Industrial Security Force posted at Mallaram Camp, was charged by the respondents that on 27.08.1995 he had “left the Camp without prior permission and had trespassed into family quarters of one Mr. Jhan Mohammed” and that he had indulged in conduct unbecoming and activities that affected the reputation of the Force. He was placed under suspension the next day. During disciplinary proceedings the respondents examined two witnesses and the appellant gave a defensive deposition but produced no documentary proof of a hospital visit. The Inquiry Officer, in a report dated 16.12.1997, held both charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority initially reduced the appellant’s pay to the minimum of his scale for three years from 01.02.1998 and withheld increments; the Appellate Authority modified the punishment to reduction of pay-scale by one stage for two years from 01.02.1998 with denial of increments for that period.

The appellant challenged the penalty in the Delhi High Court. The Division Bench found that the appellant had been issued an out-pass to visit a hospital between 10:00 AM and 12:00 noon and therefore had left with permission, discharging the first limb of the charge. However, on the evidence and on the principle of probability the High Court found that the appellant was actually about 12 kms from camp at the residential colony, had been detained by civilians and only released after assurances by his superior that departmental action would follow; the court thus sustained the allegation of unwarranted activity affecting the Force’s reputation. The High Court upheld the modified penalty as proportionate. On appeal to the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellant and the Additional Solicitor General were heard, and the Supreme Court found no breach of natural justice in the disciplinary process and no reason to interfere with the High Court's detailed factual findings. The civil appeal was dismissed and the interim application disposed of; there was no order as to costs.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2986 OF 2012 Case Title: Const. Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K.L. Janjani, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General for India