CISF Constable’s Removal Stands As MP HC Says Authority Defect In Earlier Order Didn’t Require A Fresh Departmental Inquiry

The petitioner, a CISF Constable/GD, was removed from service by order dated 12 June 2021.

On appeal, the Deputy Inspector General set aside that order because it had been made by an authority lacking competence, directed the petitioner’s reinstatement, and remitted the matter to the Senior Commandant to pass a fresh final order, with a direction to impose the same penalty. The petitioner rejoined on 26 November 2021, and the Senior Commandant again ordered his removal on 4 December 2021. The petitioner challenged that order, contending that the proceedings should have recommenced de novo and that the appellate authority could not dictate the penalty

Rule 52(2)(c) of the CISF Rules, 2001 empowers an appellate authority, when considering an appeal against a penalty, to confirm, enhance, reduce, or set aside the penalty, or remit the case to the original or another authority with such directions as it considers appropriate.

The Court also applied the principles governing judicial review of disciplinary proceedings under Articles 226 and 227: a High Court does not sit as an appellate court over disciplinary findings, and interference is warranted for grounds such as want of jurisdiction, procedural or natural-justice violations, reliance on irrelevant considerations, or findings that are perverse or unsupported by evidence [*Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran*, (2015) 2 SCC 610; *State of Karnataka v. N. Gangraj*, (2020) 3 SCC 423].

The petitioner also relied on Rule 27(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and Article 14; the judgment records these as part of his challenge.

The Court accepted that the departmental enquiry had been conducted under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules and that no procedural infirmity in the enquiry had been identified. Since the petitioner did not establish that the enquiry itself had been annulled or that a fresh enquiry had been ordered, setting aside the original penalty order did not make a de novo enquiry legally necessary.

Rule 52(2)(c) expressly authorized remittal to another authority with directions, and the Court found no demonstrated basis to conclude that the fresh order was made without jurisdiction or that the petitioner was denied a required opportunity. The Court therefore found no established illegality warranting judicial review.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.