Safiya Malik

A division bench of the Gauhati High Court has upheld the removal of a CISF constable from service, affirming the disciplinary action taken against him for unauthorized absence and repeated acts of indiscipline. The appellant, who had challenged his removal, contended that his absence was due to medical reasons and that he was denied a fair inquiry process. However, the court found no procedural irregularity and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, while serving as a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), Haridwar, was issued a memorandum of charge on November 1, 2016. The charges against him included:

1. Unauthorized absence from duty starting July 5, 2016, without prior approval or intimation to the competent authority.

2. A history of disciplinary infractions, including six minor punishments and two major punishments under the CISF Rules, 2001, for repeated instances of negligence, misconduct, and indiscipline.

Following the issuance of the charge sheet, the appellant submitted a written response on December 3, 2016, citing family problems as the reason for his absence and pledging to rectify his conduct. However, the disciplinary authority deemed the explanation unsatisfactory and proceeded with a formal inquiry.

During the inquiry, multiple witnesses testified against the appellant, and documentary evidence was examined. The inquiry officer, upon evaluating the evidence, concluded that the charges were substantiated. Based on this, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of "Removal from Service" on January 31, 2017.

The appellant subsequently filed an appeal on February 1, 2019. However, the appellate authority rejected it on March 25, 2019, citing Rule 47 of the CISF Rules, which prescribes a 30-day limitation period for filing appeals. The appellant then attempted to file a second appeal on May 8, 2019, but it was denied on procedural grounds. He was informed that a revision petition could be filed instead. Consequently, he submitted a revision petition, which was also rejected on January 14, 2020.

Dissatisfied with these rulings, the appellant approached the Gauhati High Court by filing a writ petition (WP(C) 3747/2021). The Single Judge, after reviewing the case, dismissed the petition on November 21, 2024. The appellant then filed the present intra-court appeal before a division bench.

The division bench noted that the appellant, during the inquiry proceedings, had not raised any claims regarding a medical condition preventing him from attending duty. Instead, he had consistently stated that his absence was due to family issues. The court recorded:

"The appellant, herein, in the inquiry, had justified his unauthorized absence by projecting that he was required to remain absent on account of certain family problems."

Regarding the medical documents later submitted by the appellant, the court observed:

"The medical certificate relied upon by the appellant was not examined during the inquiry proceedings, nor was it raised in his defense at any earlier stage."

The court further noted that the disciplinary proceedings followed due process, with the appellant given adequate opportunities to present his defense. The inquiry officer considered all available evidence before reaching a conclusion. The court found:

"The petitioner was given ample opportunity to present his case, and the charges brought against him were held to have been proved based on evidence brought on record."

Addressing the appellant’s argument that his past disciplinary record was improperly considered, the court clarified that this record was explicitly mentioned in the memorandum of charge. The court stated:

"The past conduct of the appellant was already brought on record in the memorandum of charge, dated 01.11.2016, in the form of article of charge No. 2."

Furthermore, the court observed that the appellant had been given multiple opportunities in the past to rectify his conduct. Despite prior penalties, he continued to engage in acts of indiscipline. The court noted that he had been previously removed from service for similar reasons but was reinstated upon appeal. However, he failed to reform his behavior and again engaged in unauthorized absence.

"The petitioner in his short service of seven years in CISF has been awarded with two major penalties and six minor penalties for remaining absent from duties without permission of the competent authority and for overstaying leave."

The division bench dismissed the appeal, concluding that the disciplinary action was justified and did not suffer from procedural irregularities. The judgment states:

"The judgment & order, dated 21.11.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)3747/2011, would not call for any interference."

With this judgement, the appellant’s removal from service stands affirmed. The court held that the appellant’s conduct was inconsistent with the discipline required of a member of the CISF.

Case Title: Kumar Chetri v. The Union of India & 3 Ors
Case Number: WA/61/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair

[Read/Download order]