Continuous Misconduct and Failure to Mend Behavior Despite Multiple Penalties Justify Removal from Service

The Petitioner joined the CISF in 2000 and was appointed as a Constable/Driver in 2006.

In December 2020, a charge-sheet was issued against him leveling five counts of misconduct: (I) unauthorized retention of government accommodation at Kayamkulam for over two years despite orders; (II) wasting organizational resources by engaging seniors in repetitive, avoidable communication; (III) using inappropriate and threatening language in applications to superiors; (IV) refusing to occupy a ground-floor quarter of his choice and unauthorizedly occupying a ladies' barrack; and (V) failing to mend conduct despite nine previous minor penalties.

The Petitioner contended that his wife’s chronic illness (Hepatitis-B) necessitated the retention of the original accommodation.

Following a departmental inquiry under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001, where the Petitioner cross-examined witnesses but declined a defense representative, the Inquiry Officer found all charges proved.

Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority ordered "Removal from Service" on November 3, 2021.

The Appellate, Revisional, and Mercy petitions were subsequently rejected.

1. Whether the High Court of Delhi has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition even though the disciplinary proceedings and orders occurred in Tamil Nadu.

2. Whether the penalty of removal from service was justified given the Petitioner's defense of medical necessity and the recovery of penal rent.

3. Whether the inclusion of past penalties as a specific charge in a major penalty proceeding is legally sustainable.

Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001, which prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalties.

Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India, which established that the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction over CAPF personnel where the Headquarters and Union of India are situated in Delhi.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. S.G. Kotturappa, holding that where an employee fails to improve despite multiple opportunities/penalties, termination is justified.

Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, affirming that removal in accordance with statutory rules does not violate Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution.

The Court first addressed jurisdiction, exercising its discretion to hear the case as it had been pending for three years and the Force Headquarters is in Delhi.

The Court found that the departmental inquiry complied with principles of natural justice, as the Petitioner participated and cross-examined witnesses.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's "double jeopardy" argument regarding penal rent, noting that administrative recovery for unauthorized occupation does not preclude disciplinary action for disobedience.

The Court analyzed the Petitioner's persistent refusal to vacate premises at two different units (Kayamkulam and Neyveli), finding his justifications regarding his wife’s Ayurvedic treatment and children’s education "unjustifiable".

The Court placed significant weight on Charge V, noting that the Petitioner’s nine previous penalties (ranging from food wastage and insubordination to fraudulent billing and tampering with registers) demonstrated a "habitual" disregard for discipline.

The Court concluded that the cumulative weight of these proven charges rendered the Petitioner unfit for a disciplined force like the CISF.

On Issues 2 and 3, the Court held that the charges were fully proved and the penalty of "Removal from Service" was commensurate with the Petitioner's sustained record of indiscipline.

The Court found the petition "totally devoid of merit" and dismissed it, affirming the orders of the Disciplinary, Appellate, and Revisional Authorities.

Habitual indiscipline and failure to mend conduct despite multiple minor penalties justify the major penalty of removal in a disciplined force.