‘Not at cost of career annihilation’: Calcutta High Court slams CISF for firing constable over mobile phone use on duty

The order added that the CISF requires alertness, but the instant misconduct did not produce any concrete harm, proportionality rejects collective punishment for cumulative annoyance.

Highlighting that in the delicate terrain of service discipline, fairness must not be an antagonist, but a companion, the court said that a punishment to be just must not merely chastise, it must reform, balance and resonate with constitutional functionality.

‘Not moral turpitude or operational betrayal’

• The uniform forces demand heightened discipline; the law does not sanction retributive exercises.
• Proportionality requires that punishment be commensurate with fault, calibrated by fairness, guided by reason, and tempered by humanity.
• His misconduct, though undesirable, can be categorised as indiscipline, not moral turpitude or operational betrayal.
• Minor penalties cannot exalt accrued weight alone to justify the ultimate penalty of removal unless the immediate misconduct is of a gravity warranting such extinction of livelihood.
• The Constitution insists that while discipline is the artery of the security force, fair procedure and measured response are its pulse
• A punishment becomes unconstitutional when the offence is minor, the penalty is maximum, and the reasoning is mechanical.
• To obliterate the entire service record of a constable for mobile phone indiscipline constitutes administrative extremism, which the constitutional conscience cannot endorse.
• The allegation about use and non-surrender of a mobile phone while on duty did not explicit the petitioner had committed any act of corruption, violence, disloyalty, breach of national security, or dereliction causing damage to installations.
• The charges were proved only to the extent of discipline, not of liability or gross misconduct warranting removal.
• The disciplinary authority failed to appreciate proportionality, relying considerably on minor past penalties.
• The revisional authorities mechanically affirmed the punishment without independent application of mind.
• The punishment of removal from service is shockingly compelling; this court, in its limited jurisdiction, which otherwise should not have meddled with the decision of the disciplinary authority in terms of imposing punishment.

Dismissed from service over phone use

• The disciplinary proceedings against the CISF constable originated from two incidents in August and September 2013.
• He was accused of speaking on his mobile phone during a night shift and an additional duty shift, and subsequently refused to hand over the device to his superiors.
• During one encounter, he eventually surrendered two mobile phones and three SIM cards to a company commandant.
• Furthermore, the authorities cited his record, which included five minor penalties for infractions such as absence from duty, brawling with a civilian, and an episode of theft within his duty area.
• It was alleged that the petitioner demonstrated a persistent disregard for discipline and had rendered himself unfit to serve in a uniformed force.
• Following an enquiry under Rule 36 (procedure for imposing major penalties) of the CISF Rules, 2001, he was removed from service in January 2014.
  This decision was upheld by both the appellant authority in 2014 and the revisional authority in 2015, and then the constable moved to high court.
• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Sohini Samanta argued that the proceedings were born of animus and bias, asserting that the punishment of removal bore no proportional relation to the alleged misconduct.
• She further argued that the violation of natural justice could be assessed as the enquiry was vitiated by procedural irregularity, the findings rested on surmise, conjuncture and pre-judgment rather than evidence.
• Representing the Union of India, advocates Swapan Kumar Nandi and Banani Bhattacharya challenged the maintainability of the plea, citing a lack of statutory notice under Section 80 (notice) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and the delay in approaching the court.