Delhi High Court Directs CISF to Reassess Removal Penalty for Constable: “Disciplinary Actions Must Balance Discipline with Proportionality and Fairness”

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court held that while the charges against the CISF official (petitioner) regarding unauthorized absence and misconduct were proven, the penalty of removal from service was excessive. The court directed the CISF authorities to reconsider the punishment, emphasizing proportionality, fairness, and the mitigating circumstances surrounding the petitioner’s case.

Facts of the Case:

1. Service Background:
   The petitioner, a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), joined the organization in 2002. He was removed from service in 2014 due to disciplinary proceedings initiated for various allegations of misconduct.
2. Key Events Leading to Disciplinary Action:
   • The petitioner was transferred to the CISF unit at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, Mumbai, in April 2013.
   • He was granted 27 days of earned leave from April 28, 2013, to May 24, 2013. However, he overstayed his leave by 16 days due to a family bereavement and returned to duty on June 10, 2013. He had applied for a leave extension through fax but did not receive a response.
   • On June 28-29, 2013, the petitioner was accused of leaving his patrolling post and engaging in a conversation with another constable. Upon being reprimanded by his superior, he allegedly misbehaved.
   • The petitioner went AWL (Absent Without Leave) from July 8, 2013, to October 6, 2013, for 91 days. He claimed mental health issues and submitted a resignation during this period.
3. Charges Framed Against the Petitioner:
   • Charge 1: Overstaying leave without permission.
   • Charge 2: Leaving his duty post during patrolling and misbehaving with a superior officer.
   • Charge 3: Unauthorized absence for 91 days.
   • Charge 4: Habitual absenteeism, supported by prior instances of overstaying leave for which minor penalties had already been imposed.

Issues Before the Court:

1. Was the departmental inquiry procedurally fair and in compliance with the principles of natural justice?
2. Were the charges against the petitioner substantiated by evidence?
3. Was the punishment of removal from service proportionate to the proven charges?

Arguments Made by the Parties:

1. Petitioner’s Arguments:
   • Procedural Irregularities:
     The petitioner alleged bias by the Inquiry Officer and denial of critical documents, which affected his ability to present an adequate defense.
   • No Grave Misconduct:
     • Overstaying leave was due to valid personal reasons (family bereavement) and mental health issues.
     • Unauthorized absence was regularized, which negated the charge of misconduct.
   • Disproportionate Punishment:
     The punishment of removal from service was excessive and ignored mitigating circumstances, including his otherwise satisfactory service record.
2. Respondent’s Arguments:
   • Fair Procedure:
     The respondents maintained that the inquiry adhered to principles of natural justice. The petitioner was given adequate opportunities to defend himself but chose not to fully participate.
   • Proven Charges:
     • The petitioner’s habitual absenteeism and disregard for discipline were detrimental to the force’s functioning.
     • His absence and misconduct were corroborated by witness testimonies and official records.
   • Appropriate Punishment:
     Removal from service was justified given the seriousness of the petitioner’s repeated indiscipline and misconduct.

Court’s Analysis of the Law:

1. Procedural Fairness:
   • The court found no procedural irregularities in the inquiry. The petitioner had been given adequate opportunities to defend himself, but his lack of cooperation and non-participation during key stages weakened his case.
   • Allegations of bias against the Inquiry Officer were vague and unsupported by evidence.
2. Evaluation of Charges:
   • Charge 1 (Overstaying Leave):
     The court acknowledged that overstaying leave was a violation of discipline. However, the petitioner had valid reasons (death of a family member) and applied for leave extension in time. The leave was later regularized, which diminished the severity of this misconduct.
   • Charge 2 (Leaving Duty Post & Misbehavior):
     Witnesses confirmed that the petitioner left his post without permission and misbehaved with his superior when reprimanded. The court held this charge to be proven.
   • Charge 3 (Unauthorized Absence):
     The petitioner’s AWL for 91 days was undisputed. Although the absence was later regularized, it did not absolve the petitioner of his misconduct.
   • Charge 4 (Habitual Absenteeism):
     The court held that prior instances of absenteeism, for which minor penalties had already been imposed, could not form the basis of a fresh charge. It emphasized that past penalties should only be considered when deciding the quantum of punishment.
3. Proportionality of Punishment:
   • The court stressed that disciplinary measures must align with the gravity of the misconduct and consider mitigating factors.
   • Removal from service, the harshest penalty, was deemed disproportionate, particularly as two charges (1 and 4) were not substantial, and the other two (2 and 3) did not warrant such extreme punishment.

Precedent Analysis:

1. State of Punjab v. Dr. P.L. Singla (2008):
   Regularization of leave does not erase misconduct but impacts the proportionality of punishment.
2. State of Punjab v. Bakshish Singh (1998):
   Charges of misconduct do not survive once the period of unauthorized absence is regularized. The court distinguished this case, as the CISF authorities had already completed disciplinary proceedings before regularizing the petitioner’s leave.

Court’s Conclusion:

1. Findings on Charges:
   • Charges 2 (leaving post and misbehavior) and 3 (91 days AWL) were proven.
   • Charge 1 (overstaying leave) was mitigated due to the petitioner’s valid reasons and the subsequent regularization of leave.
   • Charge 4 (habitual absenteeism) was invalid as it relied on past penalties.
2. Quantum of Punishment:
   • The court held that removal from service was disproportionate to the gravity of the proven charges.
   • It directed the respondents to reconsider the punishment, keeping in mind the petitioner’s mitigating circumstances and past service record.

Implications of the Judgment:

1. Proportionality in Disciplinary Actions:
   This judgment underscores that disciplinary measures must balance the need for institutional discipline with fairness and proportionality.
2. Regularization of Absences:
   While regularization of leave does not erase misconduct, it reduces the severity of the offense and must be considered during penalty assessment.
3. Reaffirmation of Natural Justice:
   The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the opportunity for a robust defense in disciplinary inquiries.

Also Read – Chhattisgarh High Court Sheds Light on Discrepancy Dilemma: Coal Worker’s Daughter’s Employment Rejection Upheld as Court Upholds Need for Civil Suit to Resolve Conflicting Evidence, Directs Re-Consideration if Petitioner’s Identity is Proven.