Doctrine Of Equality Applies To Punishments Across Different Forces Under Same Administrative Framework: Delhi HC

Background

Vikesh Kumar Singh and Arunchalam P. were CISF constables working at the Indian High Commission in Dhaka. While Republic Day celebrations were on, a woman got unauthorized entry into the Chancery. It was alleged that the constables failed to report this breach to their seniors. After an inquiry by the High Commission in Dhaka, they were sent back to India but no action was recommended against them. Despite this, the CISF started a disciplinary inquiry under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001, and accused the two of misconduct and negligence. The inquiry recommended their removal from service. However, the constables argued that an ITBP officer Mahesh Makhwana had a bigger role in the incident, but was only given a "severe reprimand." They filed a writ petition, arguing that this constituted discriminatory treatment.

Arguments

Mr. P. Sureshan, representing the petitioners, argued that removing the constables from service was excessive and disproportionate. He submitted that the ITBP officer was let off lightly despite at the centre of the breach. Further, the petitioners were on Morcha duty; they were only expected to handle threats and not monitor visitors. He also argued that the constables were punished twice—once when they were sent back from Dhaka and again by being removed from service. He pointed out that this was against the principle of equality as similar cases must have similar punishment.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, representing the CISF, defended the removal order. He argued that the constables were on a sensitive mission that needed alertness and responsibility. Allowing an unauthorized person inside was a serious failure. He argued that all procedures were followed, and the punishment reflected the gravity of the misconduct. He also said ITBP personnel follow different rules, and comparisons between CISF and ITBP were not valid.

Court's findings

Firstly, the court noted that both CISF and ITBP staff were involved in the same incident. ITBP officer Mahesh Makhwana, who had the main role, was let off with a reprimand while the petitioners lost their jobs. It held that this constituted unequal treatment, as lesser offences cannot receive more stringent punishment. The court also held that the punishment did not match the seriousness of the constables' actions. Citing Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh ((2013) 3 SCC 73), the court held that a disciplinary authority cannot impose disproportionate punishment. It explained that the doctrine of equality also applies to those who are found guilty.

Further, the court rejected the respondents' argument that ITBP and CISF follow different rules and thus cannot be compared. It noted that both forces operate under the Ministry of Home Affairs and are governed by similar regulations. It held that the rules of parity dictate that forces under the same administrative framework must be given similar treatment.

Lastly, the court questioned whether it was appropriate for CISF to conduct its own inquiry and impose penalties, when the High Commission (being directly involved in the matter) did not recommend any action. It clarified that the purpose of the High Commission inquiry was only to find out if the petitioners should be repatriated. It held that while CISF could conduct its own inquiry, the punishment could not be disproportionate. Thus, the court ordered the petitioners' reinstatement and allowed the writ petition. However, it denied any back wages or benefits.

Decided on: 12-12-2024

Neutral Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 15177 | Arunchalam P. v. Director General CISF

Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. P. Sureshan

Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak with Mr. Sunil Jha, Mrs. K.K. Kiran Pathak, and Mr. M.S. Akhtar; Mr. Sanjeev Uniyal and Mr. Dhawal Uniyal for UOI

Click Here To Read/Download The Order