Amit Kumar vs Union Of India Through Dg Cisf & Ors.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
% Reserved on: 02 September, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 05 November, 2026
th
Date of Uploading: 05 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010467702022
+ W.P.(C)16988/2022
AMIT KUMAR
Force No. 120805783
Ex-Ct/GD CISF
R/O Vill- Bhelawar P.O Tejhiha
P.S Kako Dist, Jahanabad ( Bihar ) .... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. P Sureshan, Adv.
versus
1. Union of India
Through Director General
Central Industrial Security Force
Block No.13, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3 .... RESPONDENT NO.1
2. Inspector General
Central Industrial Security Force
NCR Sector, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003 .... RESPONDENT NO.2
3. DIG, CISF Unit, CGBS
CISF Campus, Mahipalpur,
New Delhi -110037. ... RESPONDENT NO.3
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 1 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

4. Commandant
CISF Unit, CGBS
CISF Campus, Mahipalpur,
New Delhi -110037 .... RESPONDENT NO.4
Through: Mr. Jagdish Chandra, CGSC along
with Mr. Lakshay Kumar, Ms.
Maanya Saxena, Advocates and
Mr. Kiran Ji Pandit (Asst.
Commandant)
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
JUDGMENT
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the
th
Constitution of India assailing the Final Order No. 6438 dated 27
October, 2020, passed by the Commandant, CISF Unit, CGBS, New
th
Delhi, the Appellate Order No. 138 dated 04 January, 2021, passed by
the Deputy Inspector General, CISF Unit, CGBS, New Delhi, and the
th
Revisional Order No. 6359 dated 25 May, 2021, passed by the Inspector
General, CISF NCR Sector, New Delhi, whereby the petitioner has been
inflicted with the major penalty of removal from service.
2. The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, seeks a direction
to the respondents to exonerate him of all the charges and to reinstate him
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 2 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

in service with all consequential benefits, including back wages,
restoration of seniority and grant of increments, etc.
3. The facts necessary for deciding this writ petition, insofar as they
are relevant for the adjudication of the controversy, are that the petitioner,
namely, Amit Kumar, Ex-Constable/GD having Force No. 120805783,
was serving at CISF Unit, CGBS, New Delhi. Disciplinary proceedings
were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial
Security Force Rules, 2001, in respect of the charges levelled against him.
Upon conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary
th
authority, vide Final Order No. 6438 dated 27 October, 2020, imposed
upon the petitioner the major penalty of “removal from service”. The said
order was assailed by the petitioner before the appellate and revisional
authorities; however, the appeal and revision came to be disposed of by
th th
the respective authorities vide orders dated 04 January, 2021 and 25
May, 2021. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders and the penalty imposed
upon him, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present
writ petition.
4. The charges levelled against the petitioner are as under:
CHARGE-1
"The Force No.120805783 Constable/GD Amit
Kumar(suspended)"Headquarters' Coy CISF Unit CGBS, New Delhi
lives in rental accommodation with his family at Mahipalpur, New Delhi.
The force member after getting drunk rang the doorbell of his neighbor
in the late night of 26.06.2020, due to which the neighbors were
gathered there and they informed the said incident to Delhi Police PCR.
Thereafter, on 27.06.2020 around 0100 Hrs. the officials of Delhi
police accompanied the said force member at gate No.02 of CISF
Premises Mahipalpur and the above force member hit a punch to the
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 3 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

police officer deputed in PCR and the scuffle took place between both
of them . The uniform of the police officer got torn in above scuffle. On
informing by the said police officer to other PCR, the 04/05 PCRs
reached the CISF premises and took the said force member to police
station Vasant Kunj and he created chaos in the police station. On
convincing by Sh. Amit Kumar Sharma, Assistant Commandant (Night
Patrolling Officer) and on giving the written affidavit to police, the police
released him. Being a disciplined force member of an armed force, the
misconduct by him with the police officer tarnishes the image of the force
and shows great indiscipline and misconduct.
CHARGE-2
The force member 120805783 Constable/GD Amit Kumar (suspended) is
working in 'Headquarters' Coy CISF Unit, CGBS, New Delhi. The above
said force member was appointed for the isolation post (empty hands) in
quarantine barrack No.03 in the nightshift from 29.07.2020, 2100 Hrs to
30.07.2020 0500 Hrs. The constable/GD Amit Kumar after getting
drunk on 29.07.2020 at around 2035 Hrs. appeared for briefing at
Mahipalpur premises. His shoelaces were opened at that time and he
was also not wearing his facemask properly. When the nightshift
SI/Exe asked him to tie his shoelaces and to wear the facemask properly
and to maintain the social distance then, he did not obey the orders of
the shift Incharge and abused with vulgar and filthy language for him
after getting hyper . Being a disciplined force member of an armed force,
his presence on the duty under the influence of alcohol and misbehave
with his senior officers shows the serious indiscipline and misconduct on
his part. Hence, the charge.
CHARGE-3
"The Force member 120805783 Constable/GD Amit Kumar (suspended)
is working in Headquarters Coy CISF Unit CGBS, New Delhi. The above
force member came for briefing at Mahipalpur premises on 29.07.2020
around 2035 Hrs. after getting drunk. When the night shift in-charge
SI/Exe Sanjay Kumar was standing along with other force members
near the Kotee after the inspection of the weapons for collecting the
weapons then, the Ct./GD Amit Kumar came to him and he hit his hand
hard on the empty magazine of his pistol and dropped it down and he
by threatening the Sub Inspector/Exe Sanjay Kumar to destroy him,
abused him again. Being a disciplined member of an armed force, the
act of threatening senior officer, assaulting and misbehaving shows the
serious indiscipline and misconduct on his part. Hence, the charge.
CHARGE-4
"The Force member 120805783 Constable/GD Amit Kumar (suspended)
is working in Headquarters Coy CISF Unit CGBS, New Delhi. On
29.07.2020 around 2045 Hrs . the above force member threatened the
force No.170834391 Ct./GD D.D. Rathore, who was deputed with
weapon at backside of the Quarter, to teach him a lesson and threatened
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 4 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

to shoot him after snatching his weapon. The act of the above said force
member for threatening his associate member to teach him a lesson to
shoot him, shows the great indiscipline and misconduct on this behalf.
Hence, the charge.
CHARGE-5
Due to taking intoxication by the Force member 120805783
Constable/GD Amit Kumar (suspended) Headquarters Coy CISF Unit
CGBS, New Delhi on 29.07.2020, he was accompanied to Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi for medical examination, where the
doctor confirmed the specific alcoholic in the column of smell of breath
and at the time of taking blood sample, the CFSL Lab, Yashwant
Complex, New Delhi asked to bring the COVID-19 negative certificate of
above force member and also given the format of the Form. The
constable/GD Amit Kumar was called in Mahipalpur Control Room on
30.07.2020 at about 1640 Hrs and the ASI/Exe Atardeen asked him to
get done his COVID-19 test, on which the constable/GD Amit Kumar
did not get his COVID-19 test done till date i.e. 07.08.2020 despite
directing him, due to which the CFSL could not conduct the blood test
of the force member Ct/GD Amit Kumar. Hence, the non- cooperation
of the force member Ct/GD Amit Kumar for conducting blood test and
violation of the lawful orders of the senior officer shows the great
indiscipline and misconduct on his part. Hence, the charge.
CHARGE-6
"The Force member 120805783 Constable/GD Amit Kumar
(suspended) Headquarters Coy CISF Unit CGBS, New Delhi has been
punished with 01 major and 01 minor punishment in his previous
service tenure for misbehaving with the senior officials under the
influence of alcohol and on finding sleeping on duty. But he has been
failed to improve his behavior, which makes clear that he instead of
mending his ways is in habit of doing indiscipline acts . Hence, the
charge.
5. The charges levelled against the petitioner were served upon him,
th
which he acknowledged on 07 August, 2020. Thereafter, the petitioner
th
submitted his written statement in response to the said charges on 14
August, 2020, wherein he denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. Upon
consideration of the petitioner's response, the disciplinary authority
decided to conduct a regular departmental enquiry into the charges levelled
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 5 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

against the petitioner. Accordingly, the departmental enquiry was
proceeded with in accordance with the applicable rules.
6. Pursuant thereto, Shri Dipendra Singh, Assistant Commandant,
CISF Unit, CGBS, New Delhi, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer vide
st
Order No. 3926 dated 21 August, 2020, and Inspector/Executive Vinay
Bhardwaj was appointed as the Presenting Officer vide Order No. 3927
st
dated 21 August, 2020, who was subsequently replaced by
Inspector/Executive Anil Kumar for administrative reasons vide Order No.
th
4011 dated 24 August, 2020. The departmental enquiry thereafter
proceeded, during which the statements of the prosecution witnesses, CW-
1 and the petitioner were recorded. The Presenting Officer submitted his
th
brief note on 29 September, 2020, to which the petitioner submitted his
th
response on 05 October, 2020. Upon completion of the enquiry, the
Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority, holding
the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved vide Final Order
th
No. V15014/CISF/CGBS/Disc-36/F.O./AK/2020-6438 dated 27
October, 2020. The copy out of which was supplied to the petitioner on
th
27 October, 2020.
7. Against the enquiry report, the petitioner submitted his representation
th
before the Disciplinary Authority on 19 October, 2020. Upon
consideration of the enquiry report and the petitioner's representation, the
th
Disciplinary Authority, vide Final Order No. 6438 dated 27 October,
2020, gave a finding against the petitioner and imposed upon him the
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 6 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

penalty of “removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for
future employment under the Government” recorded its findings as under:-
After making brief analysis and perusal of the statements of the
prosecution witnesses and the documents provided during the
departmental enquiry, I the enquiry officer have reached to the
conclusion that the Charge-01, Charge-02, Charge-03, Charge-04,
Charge-05 and Charge-06 under Charge sheet No.V-
15014/CISF/CJBS/Disc/T-36/Amit/ 2020-3617 dated 07.08.2020
leveled against the force number 120805783 Constable/GD Amit
Kumar (suspended) CISF Unit GBS, New Delhi are completely
proved.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal
before the Appellate Authority, i.e., the Deputy Inspector General, CISF
Unit, CGBS, New Delhi.
9. The Appellate Authority, upon consideration of the departmental
proceedings, the materials on record and the grounds urged by the
petitioner in his appeal, found no procedural irregularity in the conduct of
the enquiry and held that the charges had been proved against the
petitioner. It was further observed that the petitioner had been afforded
adequate opportunities to defend himself during the enquiry but had failed
to substantiate his defence by producing any concrete evidence or defence
witness. The Appellate Authority also took note of the allegations
th th th
regarding the petitioner's conduct on 26 -27 June, 2020 and 29 -30th
July, 2020, including his alleged intoxicated condition, incidents involving
other members of the Force and the medical examination conducted
thereafter. Taking into consideration the nature of the charges and the
petitioner's past conduct, the Appellate Authority found the penalty
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 7 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

imposed by the Disciplinary Authority to be proportionate to the
misconduct alleged and, accordingly, rejected the appeal vide order dated
th
04 January, 2021. The petitioner was thereafter granted liberty to prefer
a revision petition before the competent Revisional Authority.
10. The petitioner thereafter having been granted the liberty by the
appellate authority preferred a revision in which the revisional authority,
th
upon consideration of the revision petition dated 20 February,2021,
found that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved on the
basis of the evidence available on record.
11. It was further observed that, no material irregularity or miscarriage
of justice had occurred. Taking note of the petitioner's repeated instances
of misconduct, including reporting for duty under the influence of alcohol,
misbehaving with his seniors, threatening a colleague and his previous
punishments for similar misconduct, the Revisional Authority held that the
petitioner was unsuitable for service in a disciplined force. Accordingly,
in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 54 of the CISF Rules, 2001,
th
the Revisional Authority rejected the revision petition dated 20 February,
2021, and confirmed the penalty of removal from service imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority.
12. Aggrieved by the same, the present petitioner filed this writ petition.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced three-fold
submissions. Firstly, it is contended that, during the course of the
departmental enquiry, a total of 16 prosecution witnesses and one Court
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 8 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

witness were examined. However, despite the examination of these
witnesses, no direct evidence was adduced to establish the charges levelled
against the petitioner. It is submitted that the findings recorded against the
petitioner are based primarily on hearsay evidence, without any
substantive or cogent evidence to substantiate the allegations. Learned
counsel further contends that no independent witness was examined in
support of the charges, thereby questioning the evidentiary basis on which
the departmental authorities arrived at their conclusions
14. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged
incidents of misconduct ought to be considered in the context of the
petitioner's medical condition, particularly his alleged alcohol dependency
and depression arising out of difficult family circumstances. It is
contended that the petitioner was suffering from alcohol dependency and
was also experiencing mental distress on account of the family issues,
particularly the infertility-related complications faced by his wife.
According to learned counsel, these circumstances had a bearing on the
petitioner's conduct and ought to have been duly considered by the
departmental authorities while examining the allegations and determining
the appropriate course of action against him.
15. Thirdly, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire
disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated on account of the petitioner's
alleged mental illness. In support of this submission, reliance has been
placed upon the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 9 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

2016, and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, particularly Section 20 of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It is submitted that the
petitioner's alleged mental health condition ought to have been taken into
consideration by the disciplinary authorities while conducting the
proceedings and deciding the matter. According to learned counsel, the
failure to appropriately consider the petitioner's alleged condition renders
the disciplinary proceedings legally unsustainable and warrants
interference by this Court.
16. In the support of same the counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on the matter of Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. Vs. Union of
India & Ors. In Civil Appeal No.6924 of 2021 decided by the apex court
specifically placing reliance on the para 106 which reads thus:-
106. In view of the discussion above, we summarise our findings below:
(i) The validity of the disciplinary proceedings shall be determined
against the provisions of the RPwD Act 2016 instead of the PwD Act 1995
for the following reasons:
(a) The respondent holds a privilege under the 2002 notification to not
comply with the principles of non-discrimination and reasonable
accommodation provided under Section 47 of the PwD Act. However,for
a privilege to accrue in terms of Section 6 of the GCA, mere expectation
or hope is not sufficient. Rather, the privilege-holder must have done an
act to avail of the right. The privilege provided by the 2002 notification
would accrue only when one of the punishments provided under Section
47 has been imposed. However, in the instant case, the disciplinary
proceedings were challenged even before the punishment stage could be
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 10 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

reached. Therefore, the privilege available to the respondent under the
2002 notification was not accrued in terms of Section 6 of the GCA;
(b) Section 47 of the PwD Act is not the sole source of the right of equality
and non-discrimination held by persons with disability. The principle of
non-discrimination guides the entire statute whose meaning and content
find illumination in Article 5 of the CRPD. An interpretation that furthers
international law or gives effect to international law must be preferred.
Therefore, even though the PwD Act does not have an express provision
laying down the principle of equality vis-à-vis disabled persons, it will
have to be read into the statute; and
(c) The 2002 notification is not saved by Section 102 of the RPwD Act
since Section 20 of the RPwD Act is not corresponding to Section 47 of
the PwD Act;
(ii) The disciplinary proceedings are discriminatory and violative of the
provisions of the RPwD for the following reasons:
(a) A person with a disability is entitled to protection under the RPwD Act
as long as the disability was one of the factors for the discriminatory
act; and
(b) The mental disability of a person need not be the sole cause of the
misconduct that led to the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding. Any
residual control that persons with mental disabilities have over their
conduct merely diminishes the extent to which the disability contributed
to the conduct. The mental disability impairs the ability of persons to
comply with workplace standards in comparison to their able-bodied
counterparts. Such persons suffer a disproportionate disadvantage
due to the impairment and are more likely to be subjected to disciplinary
proceedings. Thus, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against
persons with mental disabilities is a facet of indirect discrimination.
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 11 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

17. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents strenuously
opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and
contended that there was no infirmity in the disciplinary proceedings
conducted against him. It was further submitted that the findings recorded
by the Disciplinary Authority had been duly examined and upheld by both
the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, and that no ground
was made out warranting interference by this Court.
18. It was contended that, although the petitioner has raised the ground
of mental illness, no evidence was placed on record by him to substantiate
his alleged illness or infertility-related issues, either during the inquiry
proceedings or at the stage of filing his statutory appeal or revision.
19. In accordance with the established practices followed in disciplined
forces such as the CISF, the petitioner was required to undergo an annual
medical fitness examination. It was submitted that, until 2017, the
petitioner was declared to be in the SHAPE-1 category. However, with
th
effect from 29 June, 2018, following a post-operative fracture of the
radius, he was placed in the SHAPE A-2 (U) T-12 category by the medical
officers. It was further submitted that the petitioner was declared fit to
perform all duties that did not involve crawling, running, jumping, long-
distance marching, hill climbing or handling weapons, and was advised to
avoid heavy work involving his right hand, in accordance with the
recommendations of the orthopaedic specialist. Learned counsel further
contended that the aforesaid medical assessments did not record any
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 12 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

mental illness or declare the petitioner mentally unfit. Accordingly, it was
submitted that the petitioner could not claim the benefit of Rule 91-B of
the CISF Rules, 2001, on the basis of the aforesaid medical records.
20. Hence, the ground taken by the petitioner that he was suffering
from mental illness is devoid of merit and appears to be an afterthought,
raised as a defence against his removal from service.
21. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the respective parties, the material placed on record and the orders
passed by the Disciplinary, Appellate and Revisional Authorities, the
principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the disciplinary
proceedings conducted against the petitioner or the penalty of removal
from service imposed upon him suffer from any infirmity warranting
interference by this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
22. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner
pertains to his alleged mental illness, particularly Alcohol Dependency,
which according to him, was attributable to mental stress arising out of
infertility-related complications concerning his wife.
23. It is contended that the alleged condition attracted the protection of
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Mental Healthcare
Act, 2017 and Rule 91-B of the CISF Rules, 2001, and that the
departmental authorities, instead of proceeding with the departmental
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 13 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

inquiry, ought to have considered the applicability of the provisions
enshrined in the aforesaid enactments and Rules. Reliance has also been
placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ravinder Kumar
Dhariwal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors ., referred to hereinabove.
24. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the rights and
protections available to persons with disabilities are required to be
considered in accordance with the applicable statutory framework. The
material placed on record, however, does not disclose any medical report,
diagnosis, treatment record or other cogent material substantiating the
petitioner's alleged condition of Alcohol Dependency or any other relevant
mental illness during the period in question.
25. The annual medical fitness records referred to in the pleadings
indicate that the petitioner was initially placed in the SHAPE-1 category
and was subsequently placed in the SHAPE A-2 (U) T-12 category
following a fracture of the radius. A perusal of the aforesaid records does
not disclose any medical observation indicating that the petitioner was
suffering from any mental illness during the relevant period. The change
in his medical classification appears to have been necessitated by his
orthopaedic condition and the consequential medical restrictions
associated therewith. Accordingly, the said medical records, as available
on record, do not substantiate the petitioner's claim of having suffered
from any mental illness during the relevant period.
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 14 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

26. Further, the petitioner has not demonstrated, on the basis of the
material available, that the alleged condition impaired his capacity to
participate in the inquiry or that any substantiated plea in this regard was
raised before the Enquiry Officer or the departmental authorities.
27. The mere assertion that the petitioner was experiencing mental
stress on account of his family circumstances cannot, in the absence of
material establishing the nature of the alleged condition and its relevance
to the misconduct in question, be treated as sufficient to invalidate the
disciplinary proceedings. The judgment in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal
requires the rights of persons with mental disabilities to be examined in
the context of the applicable statutory provisions and the circumstances of
the individual case. The said judgement particularly in para 97 also held
that a person with mental disability is entitled to the protection of rights
under the RPWD Act as long as they meet the definitional criteria of what
constitutes a person with disability under section 2(s) of the said Act. The
mental disability need not necessarily be the sole cause of the misconduct;
however, the factual circumstances must be examined to determine
whether the relevant statutory protections are attracted. In the present case,
the petitioner has not demonstrated, on the material placed before this
Court, the existence of circumstances which would establish that the
departmental authorities acted in breach of any applicable statutory
obligation. Consequently, the aforesaid judgment, by itself, does not
furnish sufficient ground to hold that the disciplinary proceedings stand
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 15 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

vitiated. The plea, as advanced, therefore, does not warrant interference
with the impugned orders.
28. The petitioner has also challenged the findings recorded by the
Enquiry Officer on the ground that the charges were not established by
direct evidence and that no independent witnesses were examined during
the inquiry. It is contended that the findings are founded upon hearsay
evidence and lack substantive material to establish the allegations.
A perusal of the impugned orders reflects that the departmental
29.
inquiry culminated in a finding that all six charges levelled against the
petitioner stood proved upon consideration of the evidence and material
forming part of the proceedings. The petitioner was served with a charge-
th
sheet on 07 August, 2020, submitted his written statement denying the
charges and was afforded an opportunity to participate in the inquiry,
including an opportunity to cross-examine.
30. In this regard, the principles laid down by the Apex Court in B.C.
Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others, (1995) 6 SCC 749 , particularly
paragraphs 12 and 13, assume significance. The Apex Court has held that
judicial review is directed towards examining the manner in which a
decision has been made and does not permit the Court to sit in appeal over
the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. The observations in the
aforesaid judgement are reproduced as below:
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 16 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but
a review of the manner in which the decision is made.
Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the
individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure
that the conclusion which the authority reaches is
necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an
inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a
public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to
determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent
officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied
with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on
some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power
to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to
reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding
must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical
rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence
as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding.
When the authority accepts that evidence and
conclusion receives support therefrom, the
disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the
delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The
Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not
act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence
and to arrive at its own independent findings on the
evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the
authority held the proceedings against the delinquent
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 17 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of
natural justice or in violation of statutory rules
prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the
conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary
authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or
finding be such as no reasonable person would have
ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with
the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so
as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts.
Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has
coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the
nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the
strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that
evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or
reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be
canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of
India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC
364 : (1964) 1 LLJ 38] this Court held at p. 728 that if
the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence
reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or
suffers from patent error on the face of the record or
based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could
be issued.
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 18 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

31. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the
petitioner has not demonstrated any specific procedural illegality,
violation of the principles of natural justice or perversity in the findings
recorded by the departmental authorities. The mere assertion that the
evidence was hearsay in nature or that independent witnesses were not
examined would not, by itself, establish that the findings are perverse or
based on no evidence. In the absence of any demonstrated infirmity falling
within the recognised grounds of judicial review, this Court finds no
sufficient basis to interfere with the findings recorded by the Disciplinary
Authority and affirmed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities.
32. The last contention relates to the proportionality of the penalty of
removal from service. The charges levelled against the petitioner pertain
to six instances of alleged misconduct, including his conduct towards a
police officer, reporting for duty under the influence of alcohol,
misbehaviour towards superior officers, threatening a fellow member of
the Force and non-cooperation with a direction to undergo a blood test. It
is further pertinent to note that the petitioner had previously been subjected
to one major penalty and one minor penalty in respect of earlier instances
of misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority, upon holding all six charges
to have been proved, imposed the penalty of removal from service, which
was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities.
33. In this regard, paragraph 18 of the judgment in B.C. Chaturvedi v.
Union of India and Others, referred to hereinabove, delineates the scope
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 19 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

of interference by the High Court with the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are
reproduced hereinbelow:
18 . A review of the above legal position would
establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal
the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities
have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a
view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the
discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping
in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The
High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of
judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own
conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty.
If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority
or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the
High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the
relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate
authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to
shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and
rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with
cogent reasons in support thereof.
34. The CISF is a disciplined force, and its personnel are expected to
maintain a high standard of discipline, obedience to lawful directions and
conduct commensurate with the responsibilities entrusted to them. Having
regard to the nature and cumulative effect of the misconduct found proved,
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 20 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

as well as the previous punishments referred to in the impugned orders,
this Court finds no demonstrated basis to conclude that the penalty
imposed is so disproportionate as to warrant interference in the exercise of
judicial review. It is not the function of this Court to substitute its own
view as to the appropriate penalty merely because another view may be
possible. In the absence of any material demonstrating that the punishment
shocks the conscience of the Court or otherwise warrants intervention in
accordance with the principles laid down in B.C. Chaturvedi , the
challenge to the penalty cannot be sustained.
35. This Court has considered the impugned orders and the reasoning
adopted by the competent authorities in arriving at their conclusions and
imposing the penalty of removal from service. Having regard to the legal
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as discussed
hereinabove, we find no infirmity warranting interference by this Court in
the exercise of its writ jurisdiction or any ground for modification of the
penalty imposed.
36. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
petitioner has failed to establish any ground warranting interference with
the orders dated 27th October, 2020, 04th January, 2021 and 25th May,
2021, passed by the Disciplinary, Appellate and Revisional Authorities,
respectively. The contentions concerning the alleged mental illness, the
validity of the disciplinary proceedings and the proportionality of the
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 21 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29

penalty do not, on the material placed before this Court, make out a case
for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
37. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
38. There shall be no order as to costs.
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
(JUDGE)
AMIT SHARMA
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 05, 2026 /sky/ok
W.P.(C)16988/2022 Page 22 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:26:29