Police Officers Not Required To Do 'Moral Policing' : Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of CISF Officer Who Harassed Couple At Night

Police officers are not required to do moral policing, observed the Supreme Court recently while upholding the dismissal of a CISF personnel who was found to have harassed a couple at night.

The Court was deciding an appeal filed by the Central Industrial Security Force against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court which directed the reinstatement of a CISF officer named Sathosh Kumar Pandey, who was dismissed from service for misconduct.

In 2001, while Pandey was posted as a constable on night duty at the Greenbelt Area of the IPCL Township, Vadodara, Gujarat, he happened to see a colleague of his travelling in a motorbike with his fiancee as the pillion rider at about 1 AM. Pandey intercepted the couple -who were proceeding to watch a Garba performance- and asked his colleague if he "could spend some time" with his fiancée. He also demanded something in return for allowing the couple to pass, and his colleague had to give his watch to Pandey.

Following a complaint, departmental enquiry was conducted against Pandey, which resulted in his dismissal from service. The woman also gave her statement to the enquiry officer. Though she said that she could not hear the conversation between her fiancee and Pandey, she stated that she had seen Pandey taking the watch.

However, in a challenge made by Pandey, the Gujarat High Court interfered with the punishment, and directed his reinstatement with 50% backwages. The CISF approached the Supreme Court against the High Court's judgment.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and JK Maheshwari took exception to the High Court judgment by saying "it fails to take notice and properlyapply the law of judicial review". 

"The conclusions of fact, which are based upon evaluation and appreciation of evidence, when meticulously reached by the authorities, should not be interfered with merely because the court may have reached at a different conclusion", the Top Court observed. The Court also said that the statement of the woman cannot be regarded as exonerating the officer, just because she said she had not heard the conversation.

"She was a young girl and it is obvious would have felt anxious and awkward. It is understandable as she would not have liked being subjected to personal and private questions. These are facts of life that have to be accounted for when we evaluate and pass judgments. A holistic and pragmatic approach is required, especially when the Evidence Act is not applicable; and even where the Evidence Act applies, the enactment gives discretion on matters of evaluation, analysis and appraisal of evidence".

As regards the proportionality of the punishment, the Supreme Court said that the facts of the case are "startling and distressing". 

"We have to observe that the facts in the present case are startling and distressing. Respondent No. 1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey is not a police officer, and even police officers are not required to do moral policing, ask for physical favour or material goods".

The High Court judgment was set aside and the punishment of dismissal was restored.

Case Title : CISF and others vs Santosh Kumar Pandey

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1036

For Appellant(s) Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, AOR

Headnotes 

Summary - Supreme Court upholds dismissal of a CISF personnel who was found to have harassed a couple at night - Condemns moral policing by police.

Service Law - Interference with disciplinary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution -The writ court, when disciplinary action is challenged, is primarily concerned with examination of the decision making process, which requires satisfaction that the competent authorities have held inquiry as per the prescribed procedure, and have duly applied their mind to the evidence and material placed on record, without extraneous matters being given undue consideration, and the relevant factors have been cogitated. The conclusions of fact, which are based upon evaluation and appreciation of evidence, when meticulously reached by the authorities, should not be interfered with merely because the court may have reached at a different conclusion - Para 17

Constitution of India -Article 226- Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits, and adequacy or inadequacy of evidence, unless the court finds that the findings recorded are based on no evidence, perverse or are legally untenable in the sense that it fails to pass the muster of the Wednesbury principles. Power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India enables exercise of judicial review to correct errors of law, including procedural law, leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of fairness, without normally venturing into reappreciation of evidence

Click here to read/download the judgment