Joining Disciplined Force After Suppressing Criminal Cases A Grave Misconduct : Supreme Court Approves Removal Of CISF Personnel

Observing that entering the service of a disciplined force like CISF by suppressing criminal cases is a "gross misconduct", the Supreme Court approved the dismissal of a personnel.

The bench comprising of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi held that the power of judicial review exercised by a Court or a Tribunal against the orders of a departmental enquiry committee is only limited to ensuring "that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court."

The court held that, "When an inquiry is conducted on the charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court or Tribunal would be concerned only to the extent of determining whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the rules of natural justice and statutory rules were complied with.” 

Facts leading to the Special Leave Petition

The petitioner was appointed to the post of constable in the CISF on 03.11.2007. In April, 2009 the petitioner was served a notice from the office of Commandant Discipline, CISF for having suppressed the fact, in his character certificate at the time of his joining, that he was involved in a criminal case for the offence under sections 323, 324 and 341 of IPC in respect of which trial was pending before the concerned court. It was stated in the notice that such an act of suppression was under the category of gross misconduct and indiscipline and therefore the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed in a very disciplined police force i.e. CISF.

String of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner

Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The Commandant Discipline, CISF, imposed punishment of reduction of pay. However, on 06.10.2009, the DIG (West Zone), took suo motu cognizance of the matter and remitted the matter back for fresh departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The said departmental enquiry culminated into the removal of the petitioner from service. Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority both upheld the order of dismissal from service.

Judicial History in Brief

Being aggrieved by the said orders, passed by the various authorities of CISF, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in 2012. The Single Bench had set aside the order of removal and had directed the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the appointing authority for reconsideration of his case and had also directed the appointing authority to decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order with reference to the said judgment.

Thereafter, the Commandant CISF Unit, Mumbai again upheld the order for removal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner again filed a writ petition in 2018. The Single Bench again set aside the said order and allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits vide order dated 17.02.2021. The respondents filed the Special Writ Appeal before the Division Bench, against the order passed by the Single Bench, which appeal came to be allowed by the Division Bench vide the impugned order.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Ms. Asifa Rashid Mir, counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before the court, “that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case when he was hardly aged about 19 years and the said case had resulted into a compromise between the parties. According to her, on the basis of the said compromise, the Trial Court had closed the case on 21.11.2007, and the petitioner was appointed as constable in CISF on 03.11.2007.”

She further submitted that, “considering the nature of offence in which the petitioner was allegedly involved, the removal from service on the ground of non-disclosure of pendency of the said case could not be said to be a grave misconduct attracting the harsh punishment of removal from service.”

Analysis of the Judgment

‘High Court committed an error by interfering’

The Court held, “Having regard to the guiding principles, laid down in case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 and in case of Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 798, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Single Bench of the High Court had committed an error in interfering with the order passed by the respondents-authorities.” 

Pointing out that any deliberate suppression of fact is an aggravating circumstance for a CISF personnel, the court held that, “Such a well-reasoned and well considered decision of the respondent-authorities should not have been interfered by the Single Bench in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when there were no allegations of malafides or of non-observance of rules of natural justice or of breach of statutory rules were attributed against the respondent authorities.”

Judgment

Finally, the court held, “In view of the afore-stated legal position, we are of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court had rightly set aside the order passed by the Single Bench, which had wrongly interfered with the order of removal passed by the respondent authorities against the petitioner. The petitioner having been found to have committed gross misconduct right at the threshold of entering into disciplined force like CISF, and the respondent authorities having passed the order of his removal from service after following due process of law and without actuated by malafides, the court is not inclined to exercise its limited jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.”

Case Title: EX-CONST/DVR MUKESH KUMAR RAIGAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 10499 OF 2022

Case Title : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 44

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv. Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

Service Law - Joining the service of a disciplined force like CISF after suppressing criminal cases is a grave misconduct- Removal from service justified-Followed Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 and in case of Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 798 - Para 9, 13

Service Law - Power of judicial review exercised by a Court or a Tribunal against the orders of a departmental enquiry committee is only limited to ensuring "that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court -When an inquiry is conducted on the charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court or Tribunal would be concerned only to the extent of determining whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the rules of natural justice and statutory rules were complied with-Para 10

Read the Judgment Here: