Sleeping While on Armed Duty Constitutes Gross Misconduct Justifying Proportional Punishment for Members of Disciplined Forces

The petitioner, a Constable/General Duty in the CISF at IISCO Steel Plant (ISP), Burnpur, was assigned night duty from 21.00 hrs on 26.10.2020 to 05.00 hrs on 27.10.2020

During a surprise check at 00.55 hrs, the Assistant Commandant found the petitioner asleep in a chair at his duty post

A memorandum of charge was issued alleging gross misconduct and dereliction of duty

The petitioner contended he was suffering from fever and dizziness caused by prescribed medication, but continued duty due to manpower shortages

The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of "Pay Fine Equivalent to Two Days," which was subsequently upheld by both the Appellate and Revisional Authorities

The petitioner moved the High Court seeking to quash these orders and restore his service record for promotion prospects

1. Whether the imposition of a minor penalty for sleeping on duty is illegal or perverse when the delinquent plead illness and medication-induced drowsiness as a defense?

2. Whether the punishment of a two-day pay fine is proportionate to the misconduct of a member of a disciplined force entrusted with sensitive security duties?

The court applied the principles of service jurisprudence governing disciplined forces (CISF), emphasizing that members of such forces are held to a higher standard of constant vigilance and strict discipline

It relied on the doctrine of "Proportionality" in judicial review of administrative actions, which mandates that the punishment should not be shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct

The court further noted the internal "duty charter" and provisions for medical/casual leave which a member is obligated to utilize if unfit for duty

The Court found no illegality in the findings as the petitioner admitted to the incident of sleeping during inspection

The Court reasoned that as an armed guard at a sensitive industrial plant, the petitioner’s lapse could have jeopardized property and human life

While the petitioner produced a medical prescription, the Court observed he failed to inform the competent authority of his unfitness prior to his shift or apply for leave

The Court held that the explanation of "medication-induced dizziness" does not absolve a member of a disciplined force from the duty of remaining alert, especially when they failed to utilize available leave procedures

Consequently, the disciplinary authorities were justified in treating the lapse as a gross dereliction of duty

The Court declined to interfere with the orders of the Disciplinary, Appellate, or Revisional Authorities, finding no merit in the petitioner's grounds

The Writ Petition was dismissed, and all interim orders were vacated