Removal for outraging modesty is proportionate for disciplined force personnel despite the absence of a formal victim complaint.

The Petitioner, a Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), challenged his removal from service following a disciplinary inquiry

On June 18, 2018, while at Platform No. 4 of Kalyan Railway Station, the Petitioner was seen sitting next to a woman; a video went viral on social media showing a bystander slapping the Petitioner

CCTV footage confirmed the Petitioner was in uniform during the incident

The Petitioner contended that he was exhausted due to family issues and that any physical contact with the woman was an inadvertent mistake made while he was "in the wage of sleep"

No formal complaint was lodged by the woman or any member of the public

However, based on the video and CCTV evidence, the Disciplinary Authority initiated an inquiry under the RPF Rules, 1987, finding him guilty of "discreditable conduct" and removing him from service on August 14, 2018

This order was upheld by both the Appellate and Revisional Authorities

1. Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings was valid in the absence of a formal complaint by the victim

2. Whether the Petitioner’s conduct amounted to "misconduct" or "discreditable conduct" under the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987

3. Whether the punishment of removal from service was grossly disproportionate to the act committed

The court primarily applied the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, specifically Rule 146.1 (Code of Behavior), Rule 146.4 (Discreditable Conduct), and Rule 156 (Imposition of Punishment of Dismissal/Removal)

Rule 153.3 allows the Disciplinary Authority to act on a "complaint or otherwise," granting jurisdiction to initiate inquiries even without a formal victim statement

The court relied on Anil Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General, SSB, which held that members of disciplined forces are held to a higher standard of conduct and must guard their instincts

It further cited State of Uttarakhand v. Prem Ram to establish that courts should generally not substitute the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority in cases involving disciplined forces

The Court dismissed the Petitioner’s plea of "unintentional touch," noting that after viewing the video footage, the Petitioner appeared conscious and his movements were clearly intended to outrage the modesty of the woman

The Court clarified that Rule 153.3 explicitly empowers the authority to act "otherwise" than on a complaint; thus, the viral video and CCTV footage constituted sufficient concrete material to initiate proceedings

The Court reasoned that since the RPF is a "disciplined force" tasked with passenger security, the Petitioner’s act—committed in uniform on a railway platform—was a "disgraceful" and "reprehensible" breach of Rule 146.4, bringing discredit to the Force

Regarding proportionality, the Court held that intentional indecent behavior by a security personnel is an "unpardonable" misconduct, justifying the major penalty of removal from service under Rule 156

The Court held that the charges of grave misconduct were duly proved and that the punishment was commensurate with the seriousness of the offense, leaving no room for judicial interference or leniency

Rule discharged