Delhi High Court Upholds CISF Constable’s Removal From Service, Holds Repeated Disobedience Over Government Quarters and Prior Penalties Justified Major Penalty
Facts
Nand Kishor Singh filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 3 November 2021 by which he was removed from CISF service, along with reinstatement and consequential benefits. He had joined CISF on 9 November 2000 as Constable/Cook and, in 2006, was appointed as Constable/Driver through open recruitment.
The disciplinary proceedings arose from a charge-sheet dated 15 December 2020 under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001. Five charges were framed against him: failure to vacate government family accommodation at NTPC Kayamkulam after the permitted retention period; repeated communications to senior authorities causing wastage of official time; use of inappropriate and threatening language in representations; refusal to occupy allotted accommodation at Neyveli while overstaying temporary accommodation; and having suffered nine prior minor penalties without improving his conduct.
After departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority held all charges proved and imposed the penalty of removal from service. His appeal was rejected on 5 January 2022, revision was rejected on 20 May 2022, and mercy petition was also rejected.
Issues
Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
Whether the departmental inquiry was vitiated for violation of natural justice.
Whether the petitioner’s wife’s illness and recovery of penal rent justified retention of government accommodation and barred disciplinary action.
Whether removal from service was disproportionate.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued in person that he had not vacated the government quarter because his wife was suffering from Hepatitis-B, hypertension and diabetes, and was undergoing treatment in Kerala. He also relied on the education of his children and earlier Kerala High Court orders to justify his request for continued retention of the accommodation.
He contended that the department had already recovered ₹1,09,200 as penal rent, and therefore initiating disciplinary proceedings amounted to punishing him again for the same issue.
He further argued that he was not supplied necessary documents, was not granted proper legal/defence assistance, was not allowed to effectively cross-examine witnesses, and that his reply to the inquiry report was not considered. He also raised grievances relating to denial of MACP/promotion and alleged mistreatment on account of his Scheduled Caste status.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents first objected to territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the charge-sheet, disciplinary order, appellate order and revisional order were all issued outside Delhi, mainly from Tamil Nadu and Chennai.
On merits, they submitted that the departmental inquiry was conducted strictly under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself, was offered a defence assistant but declined, was permitted to cross-examine witnesses, was supplied documents, and his representation against the inquiry report was considered.
The respondents submitted that the petitioner was repeatedly asked to vacate the government accommodation after expiry of the permitted retention period but refused to comply. They also argued that his repeated representations and threatening language were unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force.
On MACP/promotion, the respondents stated that he was declared “Not Yet Fit” because he did not meet the required APAR grading and because departmental proceedings/punishments affected his eligibility.
Analysis of the Law
The Court noted that although the material cause of action had arisen outside Delhi, the petition had been pending since 2023 and the petitioner was appearing in person. The Court therefore exercised discretion to decide the matter on merits. It also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India, which held that the Delhi High Court can entertain service-related writ petitions of Central Armed Police Forces personnel where the Union of India and headquarters of the force are located in Delhi.
On departmental inquiries, the Court reiterated that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process and not re-appreciation of evidence as an appellate authority. The Court found that the inquiry was conducted under the CISF Rules and the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity to defend himself.
The Court also rejected the argument that recovery of penal rent prevented disciplinary action. Recovery of penal rent was for unauthorized occupation; it did not wipe out the misconduct of disobeying lawful orders and retaining government accommodation beyond the permissible period.
Precedent Analysis
The respondents relied on Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India on territorial jurisdiction, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. S.G. Kotturappa on natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, and Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel to contend that removal from service in accordance with rules does not violate Articles 14 or 21.
The petitioner relied on Jai Prakash Saini, Dinesh Gupta, and Union of India v. Sukhwinder Singh, but the Court held that those cases did not assist him because the facts were different. In particular, the Court noted that, unlike cases where no witnesses were examined, here departmental witnesses were produced and the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine them.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that all five charges had been proved in the departmental inquiry. The Disciplinary Authority had specifically considered that the petitioner had been permitted to retain the Kayamkulam accommodation only up to 30 July 2018 but vacated it only on 12 October 2020, despite repeated directions. It also found that he had persisted with irregular correspondence and used inappropriate language against senior officers.
The Court further noted that after transfer to Neyveli, the petitioner first sought a specific accommodation, later surrendered it, occupied temporary accommodation, did not vacate it in time, and refused to occupy the accommodation allotted as per rules. This conduct was held to show indiscipline and deliberate non-compliance with lawful orders.
The Court also placed weight on the fact that the petitioner had suffered nine prior minor penalties, all of which had attained finality. The authorities had concluded that despite repeated penalties, he had not improved his conduct and was unfit to continue in a disciplined force.
The appellate and revisional authorities also found that the inquiry was properly conducted, the petitioner had full opportunity to defend himself, and no reason existed to interfere with the penalty of removal.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was devoid of merit. It upheld the penalty of removal from service and refused reinstatement or consequential benefits.
Case: Nand Kishor Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: W.P.(C) 16663/2023
Judge: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Date: 3 July 2026
Result: Writ petition dismissed; removal from CISF service upheld; no costs.
