CISF man fired over ‘pani puri’ harassment charge, faces Andhra High Court setback

“The petitioner, being a member of a disciplined force and holding a responsible position in government service, is expected to maintain a high standard of discipline, decorum and propriety not only while discharging his official duties but also in his conduct in the outside society,” the September 11 order said.

The court said that no material was brought on record to establish that the said statement was obtained by force or coercion. Having participated in the departmental proceedings, the petitioner cannot now contend that he was not allowed to defend himself. 

Justice V Sujatha upheld the dismissal of a CISF constable over a harassment allegation against him.

A Pani Puri Invite led to CISF Inquiry 

The petitioner’s case is that he was a constable in the CISF at the Visakhapatnam unit, and had discharged his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. On November 14, 2013, after completing his general shift duty, he went to the vegetable market. It was alleged that he made some vague gestures to invite one of the girls standing near a shop to have pani puri.

He stated that while he was returning, he was caught by the friends of the girls and was beaten up. He then ran towards the Home Guard personnel who were on duty nearby, who in turn informed the CISF Control Room after coming to know that he was a CISF employee. 

Later, on November 20, 2013, CISF issued a charge memorandum to him, wherein it was alleged that he had gone to the vegetable market without permission and had indulged in harassing an unknown girl there.

Pursuant to the memo, he submitted his explanation on December 2, 2013, denying the allegations. Subsequently, a departmental enquiry was conducted, wherein the CISF authorities examined their witnesses, and the man was allowed to cross-examine them and to present his defence. 

After considering the evidence, the Enquiry Officer held the charge levelled against him as proven. After completion of the enquiry, the enquiry report was also served on him, after which he submitted his explanation on January 18 2014. After considering the enquiry report and his explanation, the senior commandant passed an order dated January 22, 2014, imposing the major penalty of removal from service. 

The man challenged the order, which was rejected on April 30, 2014, by holding that the punishment imposed on him, removal from service, was just and proper. He again challenged the order before the civil court, which was dismissed on January 30, 2017, by observing that the relevant orders had been communicated to him at Visakhapatnam and, therefore, the Gurdaspur Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

He, being from Punjab, thereafter approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein it was held that he should approach the appropriate forum having jurisdiction at Visakhapatnam. The man’s revision plea was also rejected on February 2, 2018, by the Inspector General Revisional Authority, CISF. 

Admission or coercion? 

Advocate Sai Sundeep Manchikalapudi submitted that the finding of misconduct against the petitioner by the respondent authorities is unsustainable, as the girl to whom the petitioner has allegedly gestured was never examined in the departmental enquiry, nor is there any material to show that she herself made any complaint against him. 

The counsel contended that his statement recorded during the preliminary enquiry was not voluntary but was obtained under coercion and pressure, after he had been beaten and taken to the Home Guard office. He added that the statement should not have been treated as an admission of the charge, and requested the court to set aside his dismissal from service.

Central Government Counsel Y V Anil Kumar, appearing for the CISF authorities, filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the charges levelled against him were duly enquired into in accordance with the prescribed procedure and that the charge was found proved based on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the supporting documents produced during the departmental enquiry. 

It was contended that the man was afforded sufficient and reasonable opportunity by the Enquiry Officer to effectively defend himself; he could not disprove the charge levelled against him. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that the man himself had accepted the charge framed against him during the preliminary enquiry.

Service dismissal upheld

The court held that the man failed to maintain the requisite standard of conduct and decorum in the public place in question and, therefore, erred in discharging the responsibility expected of him as a member of the Force. In view of the material on record, the court upheld the February 2, 2018 order passed by the Inspector General Revisional Authority, CISF. 

The court said that, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, it need not interfere with the decision of the CISF authorities, as an appellate authority, and dismissed the petition.