In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court to challenge the correctness of an order dated 03-01-2022 by the Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, DMRC, whereby the petitioner was removed from service as per the provisions of the CISF Rules, 2001, a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan refused to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the petition.
The petitioner also challenged an order dated 04-08-2022 by the Deputy Inspector General (Appellate Authority), an order dated 02-03-2023 by the Inspector General (Revisional Authority), as well as an order dated 10-07-2023 by the Directorate General, CISF, whereby the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was formulated.
The petitioner was appointed as a Constable General in the CISF in 2015, and was posted at CISF unit Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), Delhi. During service, a memorandum of charges dated 19-07-2021 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, which alleged misconduct, indiscipline, and conduct that was unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force. It was alleged that while being posted, the petitioner made a complaint of sexual harassment against multiple fellow personnel after which a Sexual Harassment Committee was constituted and the matter was inquired into, however, the allegations were not substantiated and the complaint was treated as false stating that it resulted in adverse consequences such as mental harassment of the personnel concerned as well as misuse of the process for sexual harassment complaints.
The other allegation against the petitioner concerned an incident dated 02-07-2021 at the Mansarovar Park metro station, in which the petitioner allegedly displayed abnormal conduct and used indecent language towards a superior officer while making allegations against CISF personnel. It was also alleged that she called the local police without justification and made an unsubstantiated complaint. Two other similar incidents were alleged against the petitioner.
After the issuance of the charge memorandum, a departmental enquiry was conducted, and the Inquiry Officer found that the charges stood proved. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, CISF Unit, DMRC, which was dismissed by an order dated 04-08-2022. The petitioner then preferred a revision petition before the Inspector General (NCR Sector), CISF, which was rejected, and the findings of the disciplinary proceedings were upheld. The petitioner’s representation before the Directorate General, CISF, was also rejected.
The Court noted that after the charge memorandum was issued, the petitioner submitted her reply and participated in the departmental inquiry, where she was duly afforded an opportunity to defend her case. It was said that the mere assertion that the petitioner was proceeded ex parte, without any substantive material, could not be accepted.
Regarding the earlier proceedings before the Sexual Harassment Complaint Committee, the Court found that even though the committee was constituted, the petitioner did not cooperate with the inquiry, which ultimately led to the proceedings being concluded ex parte, and it was said that the petitioner could not be permitted to take advantage of her own non-cooperation to allege a violation of natural justice. Further, the Court considered the correctness of the findings of the inquiry officer, which were affirmed by the disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities. The Court found that the petitioner was held to be guilty of making unsubstantiated allegations against fellow personnel, alleged misbehaviour with superior officers, using inappropriate language, and involving the local police without following the prescribed chain of command. The Court said that it was not inclined to re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its own view for that of the disciplinary authority.
The Court noted that a substantial part of the petitioner’s challenge was premised on the assertion that her sexual harassment complaints were genuine and that the disciplinary action was a consequence of her having raised said complaints. It was stated that the disciplinary proceedings in question were not directed at the mere act of making a complaint, but were based on the findings returned in the inquiry regarding the petitioner’s conduct.
The court found that despite earlier penalties and opportunities to improve, the petitioner continued to engage in conduct inconsistent with the discipline expected of a member of the force. It was said that past conduct is a relevant factor for determining the nature and extent of penalty, particularly in the case of uniformed forces, which is why the consideration of the petitioner’s previous record by the disciplinary authority could not be faulted.
The Court stated that the acts that were alleged against the petitioner had serious implications for discipline within the force and opined that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner could not be said to be so shockingly disproportionate that interference would be warranted.
Thus, the petition was dismissed for being devoid of merit.
Appearances:
For petitioner- Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh
For Respondent – Mr. Farman Ali (CGSC), Ms. Usha Jamnal
