Calcutta High Court upholds CISF constable’s dismissal, says even ‘minute’ alcohol on duty makes him ‘unfit’

The court further remarked that such members are simply “not fit” to be retained in the force.

“Misplaced sympathy shown to an errant member will lower the morale of the other members of the force. If such a type of addiction is spared, then others may follow suit, leading to degeneration of the standard of the force, which cannot be permitted under any circumstances,” the May 21 order read.

Justice Amrita Sinha emphasised that the citizens of the country are proud of the members of the disciplined armed forces.

The Calcutta High Court was hearing a plea filed by CISF constable Karamveer Singh, challenging the orders of the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities upholding his removal from service on May 4, 2023. 

‘Citizens are proud of the force’

• The high court mentioned that the force consists of several members who come from various parts of the country, and they dedicate their lives to the service of the nation. 
• The court emphasised that the citizens of the country are proud of the members of the disciplined armed forces. 
• The court pointed out that any member who behaves in such a manner which undermines the high prestige of the force should be dealt with appropriately. 
• The court stated that a member cannot be allowed or permitted to damage the values that the force stands for. 
• The court mentioned that the very purpose of the constitution of such an armed force was to provide security to vital industrial undertakings. 
• The court further noted that the CISF Act, 1968, gives ample power to a supervisory officer to take action against an errant member if it is found that the behaviour of the member is such that it is unbecoming of a member of the disciplined armed force. 

Misbehaviour can’t be tolerated

• The Calcutta High Court noted that the principle of natural justice was duly adhered to by the authority concerned while providing the punishment of removal, and he was provided sufficient opportunities to disprove the allegations.
• The court noted that the charges against the constable were absolutely clear and understandable. 
• The court noted that the petitioner has “painstakingly” tried to make out a case that consuming alcohol during duty hours does not constitute misconduct as per the CISF Act, 1968.
• The high court found that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is not disproportionate, far less strikingly disproportionate, warranting interference by the court. 
• The court mentioned that this is not a case where a penalty was imposed upon the petitioner without any evidence, since his breath analyser test was found to be positive, and the doctor also confirmed the same.
• The court added that if a delinquent member admits to the charge levelled against him, then there is no requirement for conducting further medical tests of blood and urine, only for detecting the quantity of alcohol consumption. 
• The court mentioned that not following the superior’s order and consuming alcohol is misbehaviour by a member of the disciplined armed forces, which cannot be accepted and should not be tolerated.  

Drunk on duty

The petitioner was serving as a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The case stemmed from the charge against the constable, who was accused of consuming liquor while on duty and was found under the influence of liquor. 

The breath analyser test was conducted to ascertain the consumption of liquor, and the same was allegedly found positive. It was claimed that consuming liquor while he was on duty had been held to be an act of indiscipline and unbecoming of a member of the disciplined Force. 

Subsequently, due to such an indisciplined act, he was sent back to his unit, where he could not complete the rotational training and thus failed to perform his duty and the responsibilities assigned to him. 

The act was allegedly held to be disobedience of lawful order, dereliction of duty and unbecoming of a disciplined member of the armed forces. 

It was further alleged that despite providing a reasonable opportunity to improve and mend himself, the constable developed an incorrigible habit of consuming alcohol during discharge of bona fide government duty during duty hours, which was alleged to be highly unbecoming of a disciplined member of the armed forces. 

It was added that four minor punishments for indisciplined acts, negligence in duty, misconduct and disobedience of lawful order were earlier awarded to the constable. It was added that all four minor punishments were awarded in respect of acts committed under the influence of alcohol during duty hours. 

No one-leg test conducted

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Jhuma Sen argued that the breath test result of his count did not contain the details such as the presence of alcohol odour, gait abnormalities, speech impairment, consciousness level or whether the alcohol consumption was moderate or excessive. 

It was added that the authorities failed to conduct and subject the petitioner to the divided attention test, walk and run test or the one-leg stand test. 

Sen admitted that though the petitioner consumed alcohol in small quantities, he was not intoxicated and did not exert any undue influence on any individual. 

It was added that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is highly disproportionate. 

“The authority should not have imposed capital punishment in the absence of a proper test result to determine alcoholism,” the petitioner argued. 

The other contention of the petitioner was that, assuming that he consumed alcohol, he did not behave in any manner which could have been held to be unbecoming of a member of the force. 

Addicted to alcohol

Representing the state, advocate Swapan Kumar Nandi submitted that the petitioner is addicted to alcohol and has developed an incorrigible habit of consuming alcohol during the discharge of government duties. 

It was added that despite providing reasonable opportunities to mend himself, he showed no improvement. 

It was further added that the petitioner cannot be entrusted with any responsibility which may put the life and property of others in danger and cannot be trusted with any kind of sensitive duty. 

It was contended that a reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner to defend himself and disprove the allegations levelled against him, and there was no violation of the principle of natural justice. 

It was further contended that the petitioner himself admitted that he consumed alcohol during lunch at a dhaba.