CM’s visit, a fake ID and a 2-decade fight: High court backs CISF constable’s censure over airport mock security check lapse

“Verification of entry passes, identity credentials and authorisation documents cannot be reduced to a routine mechanical exercise, for the efficacy of airport security architecture rests substantially upon vigilance at points of ingress. Even a seemingly minor omission possesses the potential to compromise the sanctity of a protected establishment,” the May 22 order read.

Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay held it could not be said that the disciplinary authority had acted without any factual basis.

‘Profound implications for public safety’

• The Calcutta High Court noted that the materials placed on record demonstrate that the petitioner was informed of the allegations, permitted to furnish his explanation and heard at successive departmental stages.
• The high court pointed out that it is “undeniable” that members of the CISF entrusted with airport security perform functions carrying profound implications for public safety and institutional security.
• The court held that it could not be said that the disciplinary authority had acted without any factual basis, as the decoy officer had succeeded in entering the airport premises without effective verification of his credentials.
• It dismissed the plea filed by the CISF personnel, holding that the censure should remain confined to the disciplinary record of the episode in question and should not be construed to cause prejudice to the petitioner’s service career.
• A censure is a minor formal disciplinary penalty in government service – essentially an official written reprimand placed on the employee’s service record.
• The judge clarified that the punishment of censure imposed upon the petitioner should not operate to his detriment concerning future promotional avenues arising in the ordinary course of service.

‘Superior harboured personal hostility’

The petitioner, a member of the CISF presently attached to the Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, stated that he was serving at Bagdogra Airport in Darjeeling at the relevant time.

According to the petitioner, the unit at Bagdogra airport function/ed under the supervision of Deputy Commandant Rohitashwa Kumar, whose disposition towards the petitioner was allegedly marked by personal hostility and a sustained endeavour to implicate him on grounds wholly unconnected with the faithful discharge of official duty.

The petitioner asserted that, notwithstanding his diligence, discipline and unwavering devotion to service, the deputy commandant persistently searched for occasions to bring him within the fold of disciplinary action by resorting to contrived “dummy checks”.

The incident

• The case arose from an incident on September 24, 2005, when the petitioner was deployed at the main entry gate of Bagdogra airport.
• During a dummy security exercise, a decoy officer carrying a fabricated identity card allegedly gained entry without proper verification.
• The disciplinary authority subsequently initiated proceedings and, by an order dated December 12, 2005, imposed the minor penalty of censure.
• However, the petitioner contended that another CISF personnel had admitted his own lapse in connection with the dummy check and that the disciplinary action against him was therefore arbitrary and unsupported by evidence.
• Aggrieved by this punishment, the petitioner approached the appellate authority, which, on September 27, 2006, rejected his appeal and upheld the punishment.
• The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the disciplinary action, but the same was rejected on July 10, 2007, and the censure penalty was affirmed.
• Lastly, in 2007, the CISF personnel approached the Calcutta High Court by filing a petition challenging the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment orders.

Gross misuse

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate K B S Mahapatra pointed out that the disciplinary action was an outcome of personal hostility entertained by the deputy commandant and further contended that the proceedings stood vitiated by denial of documents, absence of a regular enquiry and lack of evidence.

It was contended that the penalties inflicted upon the petitioner constituted a gross misuse of the disciplinary powers vested in the authority concerned. The petitioner maintained that the entire process bore the unmistakable imprint of personal vendetta rather than institutional discipline.

No judicial interference warranted

Representing the CISF, advocate Uttam Basak submitted that the petitioner was deployed at a highly sensitive point of access within the airport premises and that the disciplinary action arose from a demonstrable lapse in the discharge of official duty. Basak maintained that the punishment of censure did not warrant judicial interference.

It was submitted that the penalty had been imposed after due consideration of the petitioner’s explanation and did not carry any enduring adverse consequence affecting his future promotional prospects or financial entitlements beyond the immediate disciplinary context.