In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court underscored the principle that personnel serving under the same administrative framework should receive equitable treatment in disciplinary matters. The court set aside the dismissal of two Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constables, highlighting the disproportionate nature of their punishment compared to that of an Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) officer involved in the same incident.
Background of the Case
The case revolved around CISF constables Vikesh Kumar Singh and Arunchalam P., who were assigned to the Indian High Commission in Dhaka. During Republic Day celebrations, an unauthorized woman gained entry into the Chancery premises. It was alleged that the constables failed to report this security breach to their superiors. Following an internal inquiry by the High Commission, they were repatriated to India without any recommended action. Despite this, the CISF initiated a disciplinary inquiry under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001, accusing them of misconduct and negligence, which led to their removal from service.
Disparity in Punishments
A notable aspect of the case was the differing disciplinary actions taken against personnel from different forces involved in the same incident. An ITBP officer, Mahesh Makhwana, who played a more central role in the security lapse, received only a "severe reprimand," while the CISF constables faced the harsh penalty of dismissal. This disparity formed the crux of the constables' appeal, as they contended that such unequal treatment violated the doctrine of equality.
Arguments Presented
Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P. Sureshan, argued that the punishment was excessively harsh and disproportionate, especially when compared to the lenient reprimand given to the ITBP officer. He emphasized that the constables were primarily responsible for perimeter security (Morcha duty) and were not tasked with monitoring visitor entries. Additionally, he contended that the constables had already faced punitive action by being repatriated from Dhaka, and their subsequent dismissal amounted to double jeopardy.
On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, representing the CISF, defended the dismissal, asserting that the constables were on a sensitive assignment requiring utmost vigilance. He maintained that the unauthorized entry was a serious lapse, justifying the severe punishment. Pathak also argued that comparisons between CISF and ITBP personnel were invalid due to differing service rules governing each force.
Court's Analysis and Judgment
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, observed that both CISF and ITBP personnel were operating under the aegis of the Ministry of Home Affairs and, therefore, within the same administrative framework. The court found it untenable that the ITBP officer, who bore greater responsibility for the breach, received a mere reprimand, while the CISF constables were dismissed.
The court emphasized that the doctrine of equality mandates similar treatment for individuals in comparable situations, especially when they operate under the same administrative umbrella. It held that the disparity in punishments was unjustified and that the principle of proportionality in disciplinary actions had been violated.
Conclusion
In setting aside the removal orders of the CISF constables, the Delhi High Court reinforced the importance of uniformity and fairness in disciplinary proceedings within governmental forces. The judgment serves as a precedent, highlighting that while different paramilitary forces may have distinct operational roles, the administrative framework governing disciplinary actions should ensure equitable treatment to uphold the principles of justice and equality.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.