Safiya Malik

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur, dismissed a petition challenging disciplinary action against a Lady Sub-Inspector of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The petitioner had sought quashing of departmental orders penalizing her for retaining a misplaced pen belonging to a passenger during duty hours at Goa Airport. The Court upheld the disciplinary findings and penalty of pay reduction, citing adherence to due process and proportional response to misconduct.

The petitioner, appointed as Lady Sub-Inspector (Executive) in CISF on 12 January 2018, was posted to CISF Unit ASG, Goa Airport after completing training. The incident in question occurred on 12 June 2019, during her deployment in the 'A' shift from 05:30 to 13:00 hours in the Domestic Security Holding Area (SHA).

Also Read: Even a Criminal Enjoys Safeguards as per Law, Supreme Court Sends Judgment on Arrest Procedures to DGPs Nationwide ; Warns That a Very Strict View Shall Be Taken if Police Exceed Their Limits

At 06:46 hours, a passenger, Rajesh Kumar Mishra, inadvertently left behind his silver-coloured Cross pen in a tray after security frisking. The petitioner located the pen and took it to Frisking Booth No. 2 without informing any superior officer. Later, the passenger returned to report the missing pen to Inspector Swapnali Patil. When questioned, the petitioner initially remained silent. Only after the Inspector mentioned reviewing CCTV footage did the petitioner retrieve the pen from the booth and hand it over.

Departmental proceedings were initiated under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001. The petitioner was suspended on 14 June 2019 and served with a charge memorandum dated 17 June 2019. She submitted a written denial on 23 June 2019. An inquiry followed, with Assistant Commandant Vinay Kumar Singh and Inspector Dileep M.A. appointed as Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer, respectively.

The suspension was revoked on 5 August 2019. The inquiry report, submitted on 24 September 2019, found both charges against the petitioner proved. The disciplinary authority, Deputy Inspector General, APWZ Headquarters, Mumbai, imposed the penalty of pay reduction from Rs. 36,500 to Rs. 35,400 for one year, denying increments during the period and affecting future increments.

The petitioner appealed on 23 September 2020 to the Inspector General, Airport Sector-II, CISF, South-West Headquarters, Bengaluru. The appeal was dismissed on 23 December 2020 due to a nine-and-a-half-month delay. A revision petition filed on 3 February 2021 was rejected by the Additional Directorate General, Airport Sector, New Delhi, on 24 September 2021.

The petitioner challenged these orders through a writ petition, asserting lack of dishonest intent, claiming unawareness of the pen's value, and referencing absence of guidelines for handling left items. She cited a prior incident involving another officer, SI Priyanka, who received only a warning for a similar act.

The respondents maintained that the petitioner had committed serious misconduct and violated operational protocols. CCTV footage and witness testimony established she failed to report the found pen and concealed it in an area not covered by CCTV. They contended departmental rules required immediate reporting of unclaimed items to SHA In-charge, which was wilfully ignored.

The Court examined the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings. "The High Court, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not assume the role of an Appellate Authority, nor should it extend to re-evaluating findings of fact." Judicial interference is limited to cases of procedural impropriety, arbitrariness, or gross disproportionality.

It referred to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584: "If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries."

The Court noted that Charge 1 alleged concealment of a pen worth Rs. 8,000 in Frisking Booth No. 2 and initial non-disclosure to superiors. Charge 2 accused the petitioner of violating discipline and protocol, thereby damaging the Force's public image. Both charges were deemed proved.

The Court recorded, "When she found the pen in the tray as not claimed by any passenger, she should have immediately reported it to her superior... Instead, she took the pen to the ladies Frisking Booth area to conceal it and brought the same only when Inspector Swapnali Patil was about to check the CCTV footage."

Regarding comparison with the SI Priyanka case, the Court found the differentiation valid. "The distinction of the case of SI Priyanka with that of the petitioner has also been adequately explained... There cannot be any parity claimed by the petitioner with SI Priyanka."

Also Read: "Retrospective Withdrawal of Vested Rights Is Arbitrary and Void": Punjab and Haryana High Court Strikes Down Haryana's 2022 Amendment to Proprietary Rights Act

The Court also held that principles of natural justice were duly followed. Witnesses were examined and cross-examined. The petitioner presented her defense. No procedural infirmities were alleged during the proceedings.

"There was compliance with principles of natural justice as also the rules of inquiry."

The Court concluded, "The petitioner being a member of a disciplined Force was expected to discharge her duties diligently and with honesty... The conduct of the petitioner cannot be categorized as a mere error of judgment or negligence."

The Court upheld the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. It stated, "From the consistent evidence adduced during the inquiry, the findings returned by the Disciplinary Authority, and as upheld by the Revisional Authority, in respect of both the Articles of Charge levelled against the petitioner, and the punishment imposed on her, in our opinion, do not warrant any interference by this Court."

The writ petition was dismissed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Bhagwan Swurup Shukla, CGSC, Mr. Sarvan Kumar, Advocate

Case Title: Aarti Mathur v. Union of India through Director General CISF & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:2262-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) 10601/2022

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Shalinder Kaur

[Read/Download order]