[Armed Forces] Superior's Command Must Be Followed Even At Cost Of Personal Suffering: Madras High Court

“Any member of armed forces is expected to uphold principles of discipline to the utmost. There can never be any resistance shown to the superior or higher officer. The command is a command and should be followed even at the cause of personal suffering,” Justice CV Karthikeyan said.

The court was hearing a plea by Jarin Singh, former constable of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) against an order of compulsory retirement.

The case was that during an anti-corruption check conducted by the CISF Central Vigilance Team headed by an Inspector, Singh was found to swallow certain materials drawn from under his belt. The officers contended that the same were Indian currency notes. The court was informed that even though the officers searched his mouth and tried to pluck out whatever he had swallowed, Singh resisted the same.

Thus, stating that Singh’s act of resisting the search and obstructing the removal of whatever he had swallowed and trying to destroy such evidence amounted to gross misconduct, unbecoming of a member of armed force, he was issued with a charge memo. Following this, enquiry was conducted and though initially he was inflicted with a punishment of removal from service, on appeal, it was modified as compulsory retirement.

To prove himself innocent before the enquiry officer, Singh submitted a CCTV footage running about 35 minutes and he stated that if the same were to be analysed it would be evident that he did not take anything resembling currency notes but was only taking medicine for “an itch in the mouth”. He also relied on the result of an endoscopy to buttress his submissions.

The court however noted that neither the CCTV footage nor the test results were directly connected with the incident and what was directly connected with Singh’s defence was the relevant material of medicine which he claimed to have taken. The court noted that Singh had neither produced the prescription for the medicine, or even in the absence of prescription, the balance medicine already available with him. Thus, the enquiry officer had held the charges were proved and imposed the sentence.

Looking at the records, the court was satisfied that Singh had not only resisted being secured but had also refused to eject whatever he was trying to swallow at the time of search. The court observed that during disciplinary proceedings it was not necessary that the allegations should be proved with strict proof but there should be a preponderance of probabilities.

“The conduct subsequent to a particular allegation is very relevant. The conduct of this particular petition at the time when the vigilance team came is therefore relevant. It is not required that the disciplinary proceedings, the allegations should be proved by the measure of strict proof. There could be preponderance of probabilities but still both strict proof and preponderance of probabilities are based on the same nature of evidence,” the court observed.

The court added that in absence of any materials to show that Singh had taken medicines for an itching, the authorities were right in presuming that he has swallowed Indian currency notes and thus, such an order did not require any judicial review.

“In the absence of any such material produced by the petitioner herein, the respondents were correct in falling back on the presumption that the resistance to bring out what was swallowed would only imply that what was swallowed were Indian currency notes. Thus, judicial review will not lie on facts but to a limited extent on the findings of the punishment imposed,” the court said.

The court also emphasised that a punishment of compulsory retirement did not attach any stigma and should not prevent a person from applying from a job elsewhere.

“The punishment of compulsory retirement does not attach any stigma on any delinquent and it is made clear that the order of compulsory retirement should not come in the way of the petitioner applying for any job elsewhere,” the judge added.

Case Title: S Jarin Singh v Union Of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 238

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy Central Government Standing Counsel