Scope of Judicial Review Narrowed for Disciplinary Sanctions in Disciplined Forces Absent Procedural Perversity

The Petitioner, a Constable (General Duty) in the CISF since 2015, was served a memorandum of charges on July 19, 2021, under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001.

The charges included: (i) making false sexual harassment allegations against colleagues, which were found unsubstantiated by a Committee.

The charges included: (ii) abusing a superior officer and calling local police without justification.

The charges included: (iii) misbehaving with a shift in-charge and misusing police machinery.

The charges included: (iv) habitual indiscipline despite three prior penalties.

Following a departmental inquiry where the Petitioner was found guilty, the Disciplinary Authority ordered her removal from service on January 3, 2022.

This order was successively upheld by the Appellate, Revisional, and Directorate General authorities.

The Petitioner challenged these orders alleging bias, violation of natural justice, and disproportionate punishment.

1. Whether the Court should interfere with the order of removal from service in the absence of demonstrable procedural illegality, perversity, or violation of principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the inquiry proceedings were vitiated by an ex parte conclusion and denial of fair opportunity to the Petitioner.

3. Whether the penalty of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct and the Petitioner's past record.

The Court primarily applied the principles of judicial review over disciplinary matters, noting it does not act as an appellate authority but intervenes only for violations of natural justice, procedural illegality, perversity, or "shocking" disproportionality of punishment.

The proceedings were governed by the CISF Rules, 2001.

The Court also relied on established service jurisprudence regarding the relevance of a member's past conduct in a disciplined force when determining the appropriate penalty.

The Court found no violation of natural justice, noting that the Petitioner was served the charge memorandum, replied, and participated in the inquiry.

Her claim of being proceeded ex parte was rejected as she failed to cite specific instances of denied requests.

Regarding the sexual harassment claims, the Court observed that the Petitioner’s own non-cooperation led to the ex parte finding by the Committee, and thus she could not claim a breach of natural justice.

On the merits, the Court declined to re-appreciate evidence, finding the Inquiry Officer’s conclusions were based on witness statements and contemporaneous reports.

The Court emphasized that for a uniformed force, a high standard of restraint is mandatory; the Petitioner's act of bypassing the chain of command and her "habitual and incorrigible conduct" (including three prior penalties) justified the severity of the sanction.

The Court held that the penalty of removal from service was not shockingly disproportionate given the gravity of the misconduct and the Petitioner's past history. Consequently, the Writ Petition and pending applications were dismissed.