Justice equally owed to every citizen: Delhi High Court quashes CISF officer’s dismissal

The court emphasised that the forfeiture of pension and other retirement benefits of the constable when he has already superannuated, would be a travesty of justice.

The court noted that the reliance placed on a video recording of the alleged incident along with the statements of interested witnesses as corroborating evidence, was misplaced.

“the reliance placed on a brief selective video recording of the alleged incident, which does not disclose the entire incident or the chain of events leading to the relevant incident, along with the statements of interested witnesses as corroborating evidence, is misplaced. Such evidence does not constitute conclusive proof of the incident and therefore cannot be relied upon to justify the dismissal of the petitioner,” the court held.

It further added that possession of a mobile phone while on duty is not sufficiently grave enough to attract the punishment of outright dismissal from service.

Case

The petitioner was serving as a constable at the time of the alleged incident. During inspection, he was allegedly found in possession of a mobile phone and a bag containing personal documents.

Upon the discovery and consequent confiscation, the officer allegedly became agitated leading to a scuffle between the constable and the members of the vigilance committee.

Based on the statements of the officers conducting the search and a brief video recording of the scuffle the charges levelled against the constable were found to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Subsequently, a dismissal order was issued against him. His appeal and revision plea against the dismissal were dismissed.

The court noted that the video recording of the alleged assault did not capture the entire incident, but only the part where he attempts to snatch his phone from the vigilance committee officers.

“The impugned order duly acknowledges that the said video does not record the entire event. However, reliance is still placed on this selective recording of the incident and corroborating statements of interested witnesses,” the court said.

The court held that the two-minute selective recording of the video cannot sufficiently depict or explain the entire sequence of events and cannot alone conclusively prove the prosecution case.

On the charge pertaining to the possession of a mobile phone and some personal documents in a bag while on duty, the court noted that prohibition on possession was not absolute.

“No doubt the said Standing Order prohibits the carrying of a mobile phone and bag while on duty; however, it is admitted by both parties that, if there is a reason warranting the same, a person may carry their phone, provided they seek prior approval from a senior officer. Therefore, the prohibition is not absolute, but is subject to approval by a senior officer, which may be termed as a procedural lapse,” it added.

The court also noted that the officer was placed under suspension via order issued by Assistant Commandant, CISF as the sole signatory, who was himself part of the vigilance committee that conducted the inspection.

The court therefore set aside the dismissal order while observing that the prayer regarding reinstatement in service becomes infructuous since he already superannuated.

“The petitioner was granted sustenance allowance on suspension; hence, he would not be entitled to arrears of pay, however, the pensionary and other retiral benefits are to be calculated as per the date of superannuation of the petitioner, with all other consequential benefits as permissible under law, within a period of 8 (eight) weeks,” the court concluded.