27 years on, Punjab and Haryana High Court reinstates CISF constable dismissed for ‘assaulting’ senior in 1998

In a relief to a dismissed Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable after almost three decades, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ordered his reinstatement in service, underscoring the “arbitrary disciplinary proceedings” against him.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil quashed the order of removal from service and directed his reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil quashed the order of removal from service and directed his reinstatement. (Image enhanced using AI)

“The enquiry suffered from a lack of reasoned evaluation, as material contradictions were overlooked and essential evidence, including the medical record, was not brought on record,” the court held.

The constable was posted at the CISF unit in Assam and was suspended on allegations of assaulting a superior officer, misbehaviour and habitual misconduct.

Following a departmental enquiry, he was removed from service on October 5, 1998. His departmental appeal was dismissed in May 1999, thereby upholding his removal.

The constable challenged the order of removal and dismissal of appeal before the high court, contending that the enquiry was unfair, and the punishment was disproportionate to the charges alleged.

It was further argued that that consideration of the petitioner’s past minor disciplinary actions as a basis for establishing habitual misconduct was improper and prejudicial.

The counsel for the Union of India submitted that the consideration of his past disciplinary record to establish habitual misconduct was legally valid, and that the punishment imposed was proportionate to the misconduct.

The high court noted that out of the 10 witnesses examined during the enquiry, six did not support the allegations against the constable.

The court also took note of the absence of medical evidence to substantiate the allegation of physical assault.

“The enquiry officer failed to pursue these disputed points, did not obtain the medical evidence, and proceeded to hold all charges proved. This demonstrates that the enquiry was conducted without adequate application of mind, in disregard of procedural safeguards, and with apparent bias, effectively prejudicing the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing,” the order read.

The court further observed that the reliance of authorities on past disciplinary records to establish “habitual misconduct” warranted judicial scrutiny.

“While past conduct can be a factor, it cannot be used to override the requirement of proof in the present case. The petitioner had a long and largely unblemished service record, with prior minor disciplinary actions, if any, not amounting to habitual misconduct,” it held.

Noting that the testimony against the constable was not supported by majority of the witnesses and arbitrary enquiry proceedings, the court granted relief to the constable.

“In view of these infirmities and the settled principles governing disciplinary proceedings, the impugned action cannot be sustained in law. the orders of removal from service and rejection of appeal…are quashed,” the order read.