Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav, dismissed a writ petition challenging disciplinary proceedings and punishment imposed on a CISF Sub-Inspector for sexual harassment of a female colleague.
The Court upheld the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for two years, along with the direction that the officer would not earn an increment during that period and his future increments would stand postponed. The Court also upheld the order rejecting his revision petition, finding that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and principles of natural justice.
The Bench observed:
“The petitioner, being a member of a uniformed service and a married man, had no business to indulge in such acts. His conduct was unbecoming of an officer of a disciplined force.”
The High Court further noted that the punishment awarded was proportionate to the misconduct and, if anything, “the petitioner has been let off lightly.”
Facts
The petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the CISF in August 2013. After his training, he was posted at VSTPP, Vindhyanagar in 2014. While serving there, a female Sub-Inspector lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner had sexually harassed her by sending obscene WhatsApp messages, making inappropriate calls, and addressing her using words like “I love you” and “darling” during conversations.
The complaint further alleged that on 19 July 2015, the petitioner entered her residence late at night under the pretext of concern for her health and tried to force himself upon her, though she managed to escape. Later, he threatened her when she warned him of legal consequences. Another incident occurred on 28 July 2015, when he allegedly rubbed her waist and made sexual remarks in the office.
A departmental enquiry was conducted under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001, with seven witnesses examined, including the complainant’s parents. The enquiry relied on six exhibits — including call recordings and WhatsApp messages — confirming indecent communication.
After evaluating evidence, the Enquiry Committee found the charges proved and recommended punishment for “gross misconduct and indiscipline.”
Issues
- Whether the disciplinary proceedings violated principles of natural justice or suffered from procedural irregularities.
- Whether the findings of guilt and the punishment imposed were justified and proportionate.
- Whether the High Court could interfere under Article 226 with departmental findings supported by evidence.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the complaint was false and motivated, arising out of a personal dispute after a quarrel between him and the complainant. He argued that the relationship was consensual and that messages exchanged were part of an informal friendship.
It was submitted that no pornographic or vulgar messages were ever sent and that the Enquiry Officer selectively considered evidence, ignoring material showing the complainant’s consent and an apology she had given earlier.
The petitioner further alleged bias and procedural violation, stating that he was denied copies of preliminary enquiry statements and that the Enquiry Officer failed to consider inconsistencies in the complainant’s version. He also claimed that his revision petition was dismissed mechanically without independent application of mind.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents, represented by the Central Government Standing Counsel, argued that the allegations and evidence clearly amounted to sexual harassment within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the POSH Act, 2013. The messages, call recordings, and witness testimonies proved the petitioner’s misconduct beyond doubt.
They asserted that the departmental enquiry was fair, with adequate opportunity given to the petitioner to defend himself. All principles of natural justice were complied with.
The respondents emphasized that members of a uniformed force are held to a higher standard of discipline and integrity, and such behaviour tarnishes the image of the institution. The Revisional Authority found no procedural flaw and rightly upheld the punishment.
They urged that judicial interference under Article 226 is limited to examining whether the enquiry was fair, not to reassess evidence or findings.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and reiterated that High Courts cannot act as appellate authorities over departmental findings. Relying on State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sree Rama Rao (AIR 1963 SC 1723) and State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao (1975) 2 SCC 557, the Court reaffirmed that:
“Where there is some evidence accepted by the competent authority that may reasonably support the conclusion, it is not open for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence.”
It further cited State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491, holding that departmental inquiries need not adhere to the strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act, so long as the material is logically probative and credible.
The Court also referred to Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610, outlining that judicial review is confined to ensuring:
- the enquiry was conducted by a competent authority,
- in accordance with prescribed procedure,
- with observance of natural justice, and
- without extraneous considerations or perversity.
The Court concluded that none of these grounds existed here; the enquiry was fair, based on material evidence, and the findings were neither arbitrary nor capricious.
Precedent Analysis
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sree Rama Rao (AIR 1963 SC 1723) — Established that High Courts are not appellate bodies in departmental matters; interference is limited to cases of procedural violation or lack of evidence.
- State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao (1975) 2 SCC 557) — Reiterated that adequacy or sufficiency of evidence cannot be re-examined under Article 226.
- State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491) — Clarified that departmental authorities may rely on any logically probative material; hearsay is admissible if credible.
- Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610) — Summarized the boundaries of judicial review in disciplinary cases.
The Delhi High Court harmonized these rulings to hold that departmental findings, supported by evidence and fair procedure, cannot be reopened merely because the petitioner disagrees with them.
Court’s Reasoning
After examining the departmental records and the Revisional Authority’s order, the Bench found that the entire process complied with CISF Rules and natural justice. The Enquiry Officer recorded evidence, evaluated the complainant’s testimony, examined WhatsApp messages and call recordings, and provided a reasoned report.
The Revisional Authority had also considered the audio recordings and found that the petitioner’s conduct — especially as a married officer of a uniformed service — was “immoral, unethical, and unbecoming of a government servant.”
The Court held that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself, and his claim of bias or denial of documents was unfounded. It concluded that both the disciplinary and revisional orders were detailed, reasoned, and based on sound evidence.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the punishment was commensurate with the misconduct and reflected the seriousness of the petitioner’s actions. The Court remarked that the petitioner was, in fact, “dealt with leniently” given the gravity of his behaviour.
“A member of a disciplined, uniformed force cannot indulge in conduct that tarnishes the institution’s integrity. The punishment is justified and proportionate.”
Accordingly, the writ petition and all pending applications were dismissed.
Implications
- Reinforces the zero-tolerance approach toward sexual harassment within uniformed forces.
- Clarifies the limited scope of judicial interference in disciplinary inquiries under Article 226.
- Affirms that strict evidentiary rules do not apply to departmental inquiries; probative and credible evidence suffices.
- Establishes that officers in uniformed services are held to higher ethical and moral standards.
- Emphasizes that lenient punishment for proven misconduct does not warrant interference by courts.
