Failure to obey an unconfirmed oral direction cannot constitute insubordination under the CISF Act.

Two complaints against the petitioner, a CISF member, were proposed to be examined through a preliminary inquiry.

On 30 August 2021, he was orally informed over a telephone call to appear before the Company Commander for the inquiry at 17:00 hours.

During the inquiry process, the petitioner sought copies of the office order and the information report forming the basis of the inquiry; the respondents’ own records indicated that he was cooperating with the inquiry.

Treating his non-appearance and conduct as insubordination, the respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings and imposed a minor penalty of deduction of five days’ pay by order dated 24 November 2021.

His appeal dated 12 January 2022 and review petition dated 29 November 2022 were rejected.

The petitioner challenged the penalty, the appellate and revisional orders, and the underlying charge-sheet before the High Court.

1. Whether the petitioner’s failure to appear pursuant to an oral intimation for a preliminary inquiry constituted insubordination or misconduct under Section 10 of the CISF Act, 1968.

2. Whether, under Rule 3(2)(iii) and (iv) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the petitioner was entitled to seek written confirmation of the oral direction and information regarding the documents forming the basis of the inquiry.

3. Whether the penalty of deduction of five days’ pay, and the orders affirming it in appeal and review, were legally sustainable.

The Court applied Section 10(a)–(d) of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, concerning the duties of CISF members to promptly obey and execute lawful orders issued by superior officers.

It also considered Rules 34(x) and 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001, which permit the imposition of minor penalties and prescribe the disciplinary procedure.

Rule 77 of the CISF Rules adopts the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, including Rule 3(2)(iii), which requires official directions ordinarily to be issued in writing and oral directions to be confirmed in writing, and Rule 3(2)(iv), which entitles a government servant receiving an oral direction to seek written confirmation of it.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice, holding that an employee may seek information and relevant documents forming the basis of an inquiry, and that mere non-appearance pursuant to an oral direction, without a clearly established and enforceable obligation to attend, does not automatically amount to misconduct.

The Court found that the petitioner had not simply disobeyed the respondents’ direction; rather, he had sought the office order and information report underlying the preliminary inquiry, while the respondents’ records showed that he was cooperating with the proceedings.

Under Rule 3(2)(iii) and (iv), the petitioner was entitled to seek written confirmation of the oral direction, and the respondents were required to address that request.

The respondents neither supplied the requested documents nor demonstrated that any decision had been taken on the petitioner’s request.

Consequently, the petitioner’s non-appearance pursuant to the oral intimation could not, by itself, be treated as insubordination under Section 10 of the CISF Act.

Although the respondents could proceed with the preliminary inquiry in the petitioner’s absence in accordance with law, the absence of a formal, enforceable direction and compliance with the applicable procedure rendered the disciplinary action unsustainable.

It quashed and set aside the penalty order dated 24 November 2021 and the appellate and revisional orders affirming it, allowing the writ petition to the extent of prayer clause (i).

The respondents were directed to refund any amount deducted from the petitioner’s salary within four weeks and to withdraw any adverse service-record remarks relating to the penalty.