The Delhi High Court has upheld disciplinary action against a married Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Central Industrial Security Force, finding his conduct of sending vulgar and harassing messages to a woman officer in the same unit unacceptable. The decision was delivered by a division bench consisting of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav. The officer had sent messages via WhatsApp using terms such as “I love you” and “darling,” and had reportedly tried to enter the complainant’s home with malicious intent. The complainant also alleged that he made repeated mobile calls harassing her.
A departmental inquiry was held and charges were framed against the officer. The Enquiry Committee found him guilty of sexual harassment and unbecoming behavior. In response, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment: reduction of pay for a period of two years, during which there shall be no increments. The order also stipulated that following the period of reduction, future increments would be postponed. The officer challenged this punishment, alleging that his defence was not appropriately considered during the inquiry, claiming that he was given no proper opportunity to respond.
The Revisional Authority and the High Court examined these contentions. The Revisional Authority rejected the officer’s plea, holding that his defence allegation lacked specificity, being vague and unsubstantial. The High Court agreed, finding no violation of principles of natural justice. It held that the Enquiry Committee had considered all relevant material and had given the officer chance to present his side. The Court emphasized that as a member of a uniformed service who was married, the officer had an additional moral obligation not to engage in conduct of this nature. The Court considered his behavior as clearly unbecoming of an officer in uniform.
The Court concluded that the disciplinary proceedings were carried out fairly, and the punishment was appropriate in the circumstances. No extraneous material had been improperly relied upon, and no relevant material omitted. The High Court therefore dismissed the officer’s challenge and upheld the punishment as valid.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.