Full Judgment Text
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 07.01.2026
+ W.P.(C) 6816/2022
EX. CONST. SUNIL KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vinod Dahiya, Mrs. Khushi
Dahiya, Ms. Shreya Garg, Mr. Dhruv
Khurana, Mr. Bhaskar Dongwal
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Ms Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy
CGSC, Ms Usha Jamnal, Ms Prajna
Pandita, Ms Nyasa Sharma, AC B
Pradhan, Insp Sanjay Kumar, SI
Kamal Singh, SI Manju Nath
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:
“i. declare the Findings dated 13.07.2013 (at ANN P-
1), impugned final Order dated 31.10.2013 (at ANN P-
2), impugned appellate order dated 26.12.2013 (at
ANN P-3), impugned order dated 23.01.2015 rejecting
Revision Petition (at ANN P-4) and impugned Order
dated 17.03.2020 (at ANN P-5) passes by respondent
no.2 as unlawful and hence to quash and set aside the
same.
ii. direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 1 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34
with all consequential benefits including pay and
allowances for the period of removal from service till
joining the force, seniority, promotions and other all
benefits.
iii. any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
2. The petitioner was recruited on the post constable/GD on 28.09.2011
in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on compassionate grounds
due to the death of his father while on duty in the same department. It is his
case that on 08.06.2013 while posted in Kustaur Dhanbad, the petitioner was
detailed for duty from 2100 hours i.e. 09:00 PM to 05:00 AM in the night
intervening 08.06.2013 and 09.06.2013 in the area of Bhalgoda office
premises while Head Constable Ved Pal [petitioner in W.P.(C) 6895/2022]
was at Railway sliding. The petitioner was performing his duty when at
about 03:30 AM, 12 to 14 unknown armed persons, according to the
petitioner apprehended him and tied him to a tree at some distance with a
rope and gagged him.
3. According to him, the unidentified persons broke seals of locks of 8
rooms out of 9 rooms between 03:30 AM to 04:15 AM. He further states
that General Diary entry No. 908 dated 09.06.2013 at 05:25 AM, the entry
recorded that locks had been broken and the petitioner was tied to the tree by
thieves while HC Vedpal [Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6895/2022] was on
duty. It is stated that on the same day Inspector B. N. Patra gave a written
complaint about the said incident to the Police Post Burra Garh O.P incharge
in P.S Jharia and also the area manager (Admn.) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
An FIR No.241 dated 09.06.2013 under Section 461/382 Indian Penal Code,
was registered.
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 2 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34
4. It was thereafter, that a preliminary enquiry was conducted and
statements of the Officials were recorded on 09.06.2013 and 10.06.2013.
Additionally, on 26.06.2013, the area manager/Admn. of the said unit sent a
list of articles stolen by the thieves during the night intervening between
08.06.2013 and 09.06.2013. After which a second preliminary enquiry was
conducted by the Deputy Commandant and departmental proceedings were
initiated against both the petitioners. The departmental enquiry concluded
with the disciplinary authority ordering that the petitioner be removed from
service.
5. The petitioner has challenged the findings of the enquiry report dated
13.07.2013; the final orders of penalty dated 31.10.2013, the findings of the
appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner dated 26.12.2013;
the findings of the authority rejecting the revision petition of the petitioner
dated 23.01.2015 and the order dated 17.03.2020 pursuant to the directions
of this Court on 31.01.2020
6. Mr. Vinod Dahiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
strongly contended that there are discrepancies in the disciplinary enquiry in
as much as the same was conducted with a premeditated mind to hold the
petitioner guilty of the misconduct. He further submitted that certain
material witnesses had not been examined. The disciplinary enquiry suffers
from defects.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would justify
the order passed by the disciplinary authority and also the revisional
authority. According to him the said revision order has been passed after
this Court had remanded the matter to the revisional authority only on the
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 3 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34
aspect of penalty. According to him, the revisional authority has passed a
detailed/reasoned order justifying penalty of removal passed against the
petitioner Sunil Kumar. Keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct,
more particularly the fact that the petitioner belonged to a disciplined force
the penalty is justified.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, it may
be stated it is an admitted case of the petitioner that he had approached this
court earlier in W.P.(C) 3221/2017 impugning the disciplinary proceedings
initiated against him which resulted in the penalty of removal. The said
petition was disposed of, by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2020 wherein
the Court has stated as under:
“1. The Court has heard learned counsel for the
parties and examined the enquiry reports. In light of
the statements made by the witnesses, and the internet
logs, the Court is satisfied that no interference is called
for, as far as the finding of guilt of the Petitioners is
concerned.
2. However, on the question of punishment, the Court
notes that while the punishment awarded to HC/GD
Vedpal is of compulsorily retiring him from service
with consequential benefits, the punishment awarded to
Ct./GD Sunil Kumar, is that of removal from service.
As far as Sunil Kumar is concerned, he was a new
recruit, with no previous track record of any
misconduct. As far as Ex.HC/GD Vedpal is concerned,
learned counsel for the Respondents referred to
“various instances”, which do not appear to have been
actually discussed in the order imposing the penalty.
3. In that view of the matter, the Court directs that both
these cases be placed again before the Revisional
Authority to examine whether a lesser punishment can
be awarded, keeping in view the previous track record
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 4 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34
of each of the Petitioners. A decision be taken afresh,
uninfluenced by the earlier decision on punishment, not
later than eight weeks from today. The consequential
orders be communicated to each of the Petitioners by
the Respondents, within a further period of two weeks.
If aggrieved, it will be open either one or both
Petitioners, to seek appropriate remedies in
accordance with law.”
9. Having noted the order passed by this Court, the remand to the
revisional authority was in respect of penalty imposed on the petitioner.
Insofar as the finding of guilt of the petitioner is concerned the same has
been approved by this Court in the previous writ petition. The petitioner has
not challenged the said order before the higher forum. If that be so, the issue
raised by the petitioner falls in a narrow compass, whether the penalty of
removal imposed on the petitioner is justified. The revisional authority in the
impugned order has in paragraphs 6 and 7 has retained the penalty of
removal from service imposed on the petitioner by stating as under:
“06. AND WHEREAS, Keeping view of the judgement
order dated 31.01.2020 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
the case of No.119801125 Ex-Constable GD Sunil
Kumar, formerly of CISF Unit BCCL Dhanbad has
been re-examined. On perusal of the case files and
evidences held with the case file, it is evident that
during the course of enquiry the charges levelled (sic)
against the petitioner have been proved beyond doubt.
It is revealed from the case file that he was deployed
for 'C' shift duty from 2100 hours on 08.06.2013 to
0500 hours on 09.06.2013 at BCCL Kustaur Bhalgora
office complex. During his duty hours miscreants
committed theft by breaking the locks of 08 rooms out
of 09 rooms from his assigned duty area, but, he
remained engaged in browsing internet over mobile
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 5 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34
phone for long spell on different occasions during his
duty hours, and thus the miscreants, taking this
advantage committed the theft. This clearly shows
careless and sheer negligence on the part of his
bonafide duty. Not only so, he also concealed this
factual information from his higher authorities and
madeup a concocted story with the help of his other
three co-accused that he was tied up with a rope to a
tree by the miscreants just to cover up his misdeeds
and to mislead the authorities. It was the prime duty of
the petitioner to provide security and protect the plant
property, during his duty and area of responsibility in
the intervening night of 08/09.06.2013, but he failed do
so and committed gross negligence on the part of his
duty. The petitioner himself and his all the three co-
accused viz. ASI/Exe S.P. Singh (PW-01), HC/GD
Vedpal (PW-02) & Constable GD Kamal Narayan
(PW-03) had categorically admitted their guilt in their
statements during preliminary enquiry conducted by
Shri R.P. Singh, then Dy. Commandant. But, later they
all turned hostile during departmental enquiry being
co-accused in this case. Besides, call details of
petitioner's mobile No.8651408746 clearly indicate
that he remained engaged in browsing internet over his
mobile on different occasions from 00.14.39 hrs to
04.44.37 hrs in the intervening night on 08/09-06-
2013. The charges levelled against him had been found
proved on sufficient evidences held on record. The
petitioner was a member of Central Armed Police
Force like CISF and his prime duty was to provide
security & protection of the undertakings and thus he
should have performed the assigned duty with utmost
care and vigil. But he remained engaged in browsing
internet over mobile phone, and resultantly, the
miscreants committed theft by breaking the locks of 08
different rooms from "the area of his responsibility.
The petitioner also concealed this factual information
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 6 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34
from higher authorities that he was tied up with a rope
to a tree with other co-accused in the case and made a
concocted story of being tied him by the miscreants,
just to cover up his misdeeds. The petitioner, by doing
so, defeated the very purpose of his employment in this
force and thereby rendered himself unfit for further
retention in the force. The petitioner being a trained
soldier should have performed his duty with more vigil,
especially on his duty post where valuable plant
property was kept. But he failed to do so, and set a bad
example amongst their colleagues, which cannot be
overlooked. Hence, the disciplinary authority has
rightly adjudged his case and awarded him
proportionate penalty.
07. AND THEREFORE, in pursuance of the judgment
order dated 31.01.2020, by Honble Court of Delhi, I
have gone through the case file and other material
evidences on record, which are relevant to the instant
case for re-examination. The enquiry has been
conducted strictly in accordance with the laid down
procedure and no infirmity has been noticed. The
petitioner was provided ample opportunity to defend
his case. During the course of departmental enquiry,
the charges levelled against the petitioner have been
proved based upon the evidences, which emerged
during the course of enquiry. From the evidences
available on record, it has been found that the
petitioner was deployed for 'C' shift duty from 2100
hours on 08.06.2013 to 0500 hours on 09.06.2013 at
BCCL Kustur, Bhalgora office. During his duty hours
miscreants committed theft by breaking the locks of 08
rooms out of 09 rooms from his assigned area of
responsibility during his duty hours. Being a member
of the Force, it was the prime duty of petitioner to
provide security and protect the property of the
undertaking from his assigned area of responsibility.
But, he failed to prevent the theft to occur, which
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 7 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34
clearly shows his sheer negligence and gross
carelessness on his part towards performing bonafide
duty. The petitioner also concealed the information
about the theft from higher authorities and made up a
concocted story with the help of his other three co-
accused that he was tied with a rope to a tree by
miscreants in order to cover up his misdeeds and also
with an intention to mislead the authorities. The
petitioner himself and all the three co-accused viz.
ASI/Exe S.P. Singh (PW-01), HC/GD Vedpal (PW-02)
& Constable/GD Kamal Narayan (PW-03) have
categorically admitted their guilt in their statements
during preliminary enquiry. CISF is Armed Force of
the Union and expects all its members of the Force to
exhibit highest professional and moral standard in
discharge of their duty of security and protection of
Government property. But, the petitioner has shown
utter disregard to his assigned responsibility and duty.
The offence committed by the petitioner is very serious
in nature, and thereby he has rendered himself unfit for
further retention in the Force. The Disciplinary
Authority rightly adjudged his case awarded the
punishment of "Removal from Service", which is just
and fair in accordance with the gravity of the offence
committed by him. Thus, I found that the order passed
by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the
Appellate Authority stands good and does not warrant
any further interference.”
10. The aforesaid justification given by the revisional authority in
upholding the penalty of removal is a very considered order. He has
highlighted the fact that the petitioner has concocted the story of he having
been tied with the tree which as a fact has never happened. So the attempt of
the petitioner and the other co-delinquent is to create an incorrect narrative
only to escape the charge which has been framed against him need to be
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 8 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34
taken seriously. Moreso, when the petitioner was employed in Armed Force
like CISF, wherein he is expected to maintain higher professional and moral
standards.
11. In this regard, we refer to the judgment given by the Supreme Court in
the case of State of Karnataka v. Umesh, (2022) 6 SCC 563 wherein while
referring to the limited scope of judicial interference, viz, a departmental
enquiry the Court held as under:
“22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act
as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary
authority. The court does not reappreciate the evidence on the
basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in
the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise
of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether:
(i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with;
(ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence;
(iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the
disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and
(iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer
from perversity; and
(v) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct.
23. However, none of the above tests for attracting the
interference of the High Court were attracted in the present
case. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal having exercised
the power of judicial review found no reason to interfere with
the award of punishment of compulsory retirement. The
Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction
under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls
within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer. The enquiry
was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural
justice. The findings of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary
authority are sustainable with reference to the evidence which
was adduced during the enquiry. The acquittal of the
respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge
upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 9 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34
misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. We are of the view the penalty of ‘removal’ imposed on the petitioner
is not disproportionate to the charges framed and proved, as the revisional
authority has given sufficient justification to uphold/reiterate the penalty of
removal.
13. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JANUARY 07, 2026/ rt
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 10 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 07.01.2026
+ W.P.(C) 6816/2022
EX. CONST. SUNIL KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vinod Dahiya, Mrs. Khushi
Dahiya, Ms. Shreya Garg, Mr. Dhruv
Khurana, Mr. Bhaskar Dongwal
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Ms Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy
CGSC, Ms Usha Jamnal, Ms Prajna
Pandita, Ms Nyasa Sharma, AC B
Pradhan, Insp Sanjay Kumar, SI
Kamal Singh, SI Manju Nath
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:
“i. declare the Findings dated 13.07.2013 (at ANN P-
1), impugned final Order dated 31.10.2013 (at ANN P-
2), impugned appellate order dated 26.12.2013 (at
ANN P-3), impugned order dated 23.01.2015 rejecting
Revision Petition (at ANN P-4) and impugned Order
dated 17.03.2020 (at ANN P-5) passes by respondent
no.2 as unlawful and hence to quash and set aside the
same.
ii. direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 1 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34
with all consequential benefits including pay and
allowances for the period of removal from service till
joining the force, seniority, promotions and other all
benefits.
iii. any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
2. The petitioner was recruited on the post constable/GD on 28.09.2011
in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on compassionate grounds
due to the death of his father while on duty in the same department. It is his
case that on 08.06.2013 while posted in Kustaur Dhanbad, the petitioner was
detailed for duty from 2100 hours i.e. 09:00 PM to 05:00 AM in the night
intervening 08.06.2013 and 09.06.2013 in the area of Bhalgoda office
premises while Head Constable Ved Pal [petitioner in W.P.(C) 6895/2022]
was at Railway sliding. The petitioner was performing his duty when at
about 03:30 AM, 12 to 14 unknown armed persons, according to the
petitioner apprehended him and tied him to a tree at some distance with a
rope and gagged him.
3. According to him, the unidentified persons broke seals of locks of 8
rooms out of 9 rooms between 03:30 AM to 04:15 AM. He further states
that General Diary entry No. 908 dated 09.06.2013 at 05:25 AM, the entry
recorded that locks had been broken and the petitioner was tied to the tree by
thieves while HC Vedpal [Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6895/2022] was on
duty. It is stated that on the same day Inspector B. N. Patra gave a written
complaint about the said incident to the Police Post Burra Garh O.P incharge
in P.S Jharia and also the area manager (Admn.) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
An FIR No.241 dated 09.06.2013 under Section 461/382 Indian Penal Code,
was registered.
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 2 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34
4. It was thereafter, that a preliminary enquiry was conducted and
statements of the Officials were recorded on 09.06.2013 and 10.06.2013.
Additionally, on 26.06.2013, the area manager/Admn. of the said unit sent a
list of articles stolen by the thieves during the night intervening between
08.06.2013 and 09.06.2013. After which a second preliminary enquiry was
conducted by the Deputy Commandant and departmental proceedings were
initiated against both the petitioners. The departmental enquiry concluded
with the disciplinary authority ordering that the petitioner be removed from
service.
5. The petitioner has challenged the findings of the enquiry report dated
13.07.2013; the final orders of penalty dated 31.10.2013, the findings of the
appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner dated 26.12.2013;
the findings of the authority rejecting the revision petition of the petitioner
dated 23.01.2015 and the order dated 17.03.2020 pursuant to the directions
of this Court on 31.01.2020
6. Mr. Vinod Dahiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
strongly contended that there are discrepancies in the disciplinary enquiry in
as much as the same was conducted with a premeditated mind to hold the
petitioner guilty of the misconduct. He further submitted that certain
material witnesses had not been examined. The disciplinary enquiry suffers
from defects.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would justify
the order passed by the disciplinary authority and also the revisional
authority. According to him the said revision order has been passed after
this Court had remanded the matter to the revisional authority only on the
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 3 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34
aspect of penalty. According to him, the revisional authority has passed a
detailed/reasoned order justifying penalty of removal passed against the
petitioner Sunil Kumar. Keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct,
more particularly the fact that the petitioner belonged to a disciplined force
the penalty is justified.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, it may
be stated it is an admitted case of the petitioner that he had approached this
court earlier in W.P.(C) 3221/2017 impugning the disciplinary proceedings
initiated against him which resulted in the penalty of removal. The said
petition was disposed of, by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2020 wherein
the Court has stated as under:
“1. The Court has heard learned counsel for the
parties and examined the enquiry reports. In light of
the statements made by the witnesses, and the internet
logs, the Court is satisfied that no interference is called
for, as far as the finding of guilt of the Petitioners is
concerned.
2. However, on the question of punishment, the Court
notes that while the punishment awarded to HC/GD
Vedpal is of compulsorily retiring him from service
with consequential benefits, the punishment awarded to
Ct./GD Sunil Kumar, is that of removal from service.
As far as Sunil Kumar is concerned, he was a new
recruit, with no previous track record of any
misconduct. As far as Ex.HC/GD Vedpal is concerned,
learned counsel for the Respondents referred to
“various instances”, which do not appear to have been
actually discussed in the order imposing the penalty.
3. In that view of the matter, the Court directs that both
these cases be placed again before the Revisional
Authority to examine whether a lesser punishment can
be awarded, keeping in view the previous track record
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 4 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34
of each of the Petitioners. A decision be taken afresh,
uninfluenced by the earlier decision on punishment, not
later than eight weeks from today. The consequential
orders be communicated to each of the Petitioners by
the Respondents, within a further period of two weeks.
If aggrieved, it will be open either one or both
Petitioners, to seek appropriate remedies in
accordance with law.”
9. Having noted the order passed by this Court, the remand to the
revisional authority was in respect of penalty imposed on the petitioner.
Insofar as the finding of guilt of the petitioner is concerned the same has
been approved by this Court in the previous writ petition. The petitioner has
not challenged the said order before the higher forum. If that be so, the issue
raised by the petitioner falls in a narrow compass, whether the penalty of
removal imposed on the petitioner is justified. The revisional authority in the
impugned order has in paragraphs 6 and 7 has retained the penalty of
removal from service imposed on the petitioner by stating as under:
“06. AND WHEREAS, Keeping view of the judgement
order dated 31.01.2020 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
the case of No.119801125 Ex-Constable GD Sunil
Kumar, formerly of CISF Unit BCCL Dhanbad has
been re-examined. On perusal of the case files and
evidences held with the case file, it is evident that
during the course of enquiry the charges levelled (sic)
against the petitioner have been proved beyond doubt.
It is revealed from the case file that he was deployed
for 'C' shift duty from 2100 hours on 08.06.2013 to
0500 hours on 09.06.2013 at BCCL Kustaur Bhalgora
office complex. During his duty hours miscreants
committed theft by breaking the locks of 08 rooms out
of 09 rooms from his assigned duty area, but, he
remained engaged in browsing internet over mobile
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 5 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34
phone for long spell on different occasions during his
duty hours, and thus the miscreants, taking this
advantage committed the theft. This clearly shows
careless and sheer negligence on the part of his
bonafide duty. Not only so, he also concealed this
factual information from his higher authorities and
madeup a concocted story with the help of his other
three co-accused that he was tied up with a rope to a
tree by the miscreants just to cover up his misdeeds
and to mislead the authorities. It was the prime duty of
the petitioner to provide security and protect the plant
property, during his duty and area of responsibility in
the intervening night of 08/09.06.2013, but he failed do
so and committed gross negligence on the part of his
duty. The petitioner himself and his all the three co-
accused viz. ASI/Exe S.P. Singh (PW-01), HC/GD
Vedpal (PW-02) & Constable GD Kamal Narayan
(PW-03) had categorically admitted their guilt in their
statements during preliminary enquiry conducted by
Shri R.P. Singh, then Dy. Commandant. But, later they
all turned hostile during departmental enquiry being
co-accused in this case. Besides, call details of
petitioner's mobile No.8651408746 clearly indicate
that he remained engaged in browsing internet over his
mobile on different occasions from 00.14.39 hrs to
04.44.37 hrs in the intervening night on 08/09-06-
2013. The charges levelled against him had been found
proved on sufficient evidences held on record. The
petitioner was a member of Central Armed Police
Force like CISF and his prime duty was to provide
security & protection of the undertakings and thus he
should have performed the assigned duty with utmost
care and vigil. But he remained engaged in browsing
internet over mobile phone, and resultantly, the
miscreants committed theft by breaking the locks of 08
different rooms from "the area of his responsibility.
The petitioner also concealed this factual information
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 6 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34
from higher authorities that he was tied up with a rope
to a tree with other co-accused in the case and made a
concocted story of being tied him by the miscreants,
just to cover up his misdeeds. The petitioner, by doing
so, defeated the very purpose of his employment in this
force and thereby rendered himself unfit for further
retention in the force. The petitioner being a trained
soldier should have performed his duty with more vigil,
especially on his duty post where valuable plant
property was kept. But he failed to do so, and set a bad
example amongst their colleagues, which cannot be
overlooked. Hence, the disciplinary authority has
rightly adjudged his case and awarded him
proportionate penalty.
07. AND THEREFORE, in pursuance of the judgment
order dated 31.01.2020, by Honble Court of Delhi, I
have gone through the case file and other material
evidences on record, which are relevant to the instant
case for re-examination. The enquiry has been
conducted strictly in accordance with the laid down
procedure and no infirmity has been noticed. The
petitioner was provided ample opportunity to defend
his case. During the course of departmental enquiry,
the charges levelled against the petitioner have been
proved based upon the evidences, which emerged
during the course of enquiry. From the evidences
available on record, it has been found that the
petitioner was deployed for 'C' shift duty from 2100
hours on 08.06.2013 to 0500 hours on 09.06.2013 at
BCCL Kustur, Bhalgora office. During his duty hours
miscreants committed theft by breaking the locks of 08
rooms out of 09 rooms from his assigned area of
responsibility during his duty hours. Being a member
of the Force, it was the prime duty of petitioner to
provide security and protect the property of the
undertaking from his assigned area of responsibility.
But, he failed to prevent the theft to occur, which
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 7 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34
clearly shows his sheer negligence and gross
carelessness on his part towards performing bonafide
duty. The petitioner also concealed the information
about the theft from higher authorities and made up a
concocted story with the help of his other three co-
accused that he was tied with a rope to a tree by
miscreants in order to cover up his misdeeds and also
with an intention to mislead the authorities. The
petitioner himself and all the three co-accused viz.
ASI/Exe S.P. Singh (PW-01), HC/GD Vedpal (PW-02)
& Constable/GD Kamal Narayan (PW-03) have
categorically admitted their guilt in their statements
during preliminary enquiry. CISF is Armed Force of
the Union and expects all its members of the Force to
exhibit highest professional and moral standard in
discharge of their duty of security and protection of
Government property. But, the petitioner has shown
utter disregard to his assigned responsibility and duty.
The offence committed by the petitioner is very serious
in nature, and thereby he has rendered himself unfit for
further retention in the Force. The Disciplinary
Authority rightly adjudged his case awarded the
punishment of "Removal from Service", which is just
and fair in accordance with the gravity of the offence
committed by him. Thus, I found that the order passed
by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the
Appellate Authority stands good and does not warrant
any further interference.”
10. The aforesaid justification given by the revisional authority in
upholding the penalty of removal is a very considered order. He has
highlighted the fact that the petitioner has concocted the story of he having
been tied with the tree which as a fact has never happened. So the attempt of
the petitioner and the other co-delinquent is to create an incorrect narrative
only to escape the charge which has been framed against him need to be
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 8 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34
taken seriously. Moreso, when the petitioner was employed in Armed Force
like CISF, wherein he is expected to maintain higher professional and moral
standards.
11. In this regard, we refer to the judgment given by the Supreme Court in
the case of State of Karnataka v. Umesh, (2022) 6 SCC 563 wherein while
referring to the limited scope of judicial interference, viz, a departmental
enquiry the Court held as under:
“22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act
as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary
authority. The court does not reappreciate the evidence on the
basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in
the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise
of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether:
(i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with;
(ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence;
(iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the
disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and
(iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer
from perversity; and
(v) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct.
23. However, none of the above tests for attracting the
interference of the High Court were attracted in the present
case. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal having exercised
the power of judicial review found no reason to interfere with
the award of punishment of compulsory retirement. The
Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction
under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls
within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer. The enquiry
was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural
justice. The findings of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary
authority are sustainable with reference to the evidence which
was adduced during the enquiry. The acquittal of the
respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge
upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 9 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34
misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. We are of the view the penalty of ‘removal’ imposed on the petitioner
is not disproportionate to the charges framed and proved, as the revisional
authority has given sufficient justification to uphold/reiterate the penalty of
removal.
13. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JANUARY 07, 2026/ rt
W.P.(C) 6816/2022 Page 10 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:13.01.2026
14:52:34