Const. Amar Singh vs Union Of India

2025 INSC 1055 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2986 OF 2012

CONST. AMAR SINGH APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. The appellant, a constable with the Central Industrial Security

Force-CISF is aggrieved by the penalty imposed pursuant to

disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the respondents.

2. When the appellant was serving as a constable at Mallaram Camp,

he was served with a statement of articles of charge wherein it was

stated that on 27.08.1995 he had left the Camp without prior

permission and had trespassed into family quarters of one Mr. Jhan

Mohammed at a distance of about 12 kms from his company Camp.

It was also stated that the appellant was guilty of gross indiscipline

and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Armed Forces of the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Union as he had indulged in unwarranted activities affecting the KAPIL TANDON Date: 2025.08.29 17:08:19 IST

reputation of the Force amongst the civilians of the colony. The Reason:

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2986 OF 2012 1

appellant was placed under suspension on 28.08.1995. The

appellant denied the aforesaid charges. During the course of the

disciplinary proceedings, the respondents examined two witnesses

while the appellant examined himself in defence. The Inquiry Officer

at the conclusion of the inquiry submitted his report dated

16.12.1997 holding that both the charges had been proved against

the appellant. The appellant made a representation against the

Inquiry Report. The Disciplinary Authority, the Commandant, on

17.01.1998 proceeded to impose the penalty of reduction of

appellant’s pay to the minimum of the pay-scale under the Fifth Pay

Commission for a period of three years from 01.02.1998. Future

increments were also withheld during the period of reduction of pay-

scale. The appellant preferred an appeal against the aforesaid

order. The Appellate Authority on 23.04.1998 agreed with the

findings as recorded but found that the penalty awarded to the

appellant was excessive. He therefore modified the order of penalty

and directed reduction of the appellant’s pay-scale by one stage for

a period of two years from 01.02.1998. The appellant was held not

entitled to earn any increment during the said period.

3. The appellant being aggrieved approached the Delhi High Court for

challenging the order of penalty. The Division Bench considered the

entire matter in detail. After appreciating the report of the Inquiry CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2986 OF 2012 2 Officer it held that the appellant had in fact taken permission in the

form of an out-pass that had been issued for a duration of two hours

for going to a hospital. It therefore held that he had left the Camp

with permission. However, insofar as second charge was

concerned, it held that the appellant was found at a distance of 12

kms from the Camp when in fact he had been granted permission

to visit the hospital. It also found from the material on record that on

account of his conduct, the civilians at the area had detained him as

a result of which the appellant’s superior officers were required to

come to the site. Only on the assurance that some departmental

action would be taken against the appellant was he permitted to go.

The High Court therefore found that though charge No. 1 was not

proved, the evidence on record when tested on the principle of

probability supported charge No. 2. It also found that the penalty as

reduced by the Appellate Authority was commensurate with the

wrong that was committed. It therefore dismissed the writ petition.

4. We have heard Mr. K.L. Janjani, learned counsel for the appellant

and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General for the

respondents. With their assistance, we have perused copy of the

Inquiry Report, the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as

well as impugned judgment. Having given thoughtful consideration

to the material on record, we are satisfied that the impugned CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2986 OF 2012 3 judgment does not call for any interference. Undisputedly, the

appellant was issued an out-pass on 27.08.1995 to enable him to

visit the hospital between 10:00 AM to 12:00 noon on that day.

Instead of visiting the hospital, the appellant was found at the

residential colony at a distance about 12 kms from his Camp. The

appellant in his deposition was unable to produce any document

with regard to his visit to the hospital. He admitted that he had visited

the residential colony to enquire about the quarters allotted to

another constable. He further admitted that he had been confined

by the civilians at the residential colony and it was only after the

arrival of his superior, Inspector Lakra who had assured the

gathering that departmental inquiry would be held against the

appellant was he permitted to go. The High Court rightly found that

the first charge that the appellant had left the camp without prior

permission had not been proved. It however found that though the

first limb of charge No. 1 was not established, the other limb of the

said charge read with charge No. 2 had been proved. It was factually

found that the appellant was at a distance of about 12 kms from the

Camp instead of the hospital and that he had been detained by

civilians on account of indulging in some unwarranted activity.

Though it was held that there was no evidence of trespass into the

family quarter of Mr. Jhan Mohammed, the fact that the appellant CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2986 OF 2012 4 was permitted to leave only after intervention of his superiors who

had assured departmental action against him was sufficient to hold

that the appellant had indulged in some unwarranted activity by

which the civilians were agitated thereby affecting the reputation of

the Force amongst the civilians. The penalty as modified by the

Appellate Authority of reducing his pay-scale by one stage for a

period of two years from 01.02.1998 and depriving him of any

increment during the period of reduction was found to be

commensurate with the wrong committed.

5. The High Court having examined the entire matter in detail and there

being no grievance raised by the appellant of breach of principles of

natural justice during the course of the disciplinary proceedings, we

do not find that this is a fit case to exercise discretion under Article

136 of the Constitution of India, more so when the appellant is a

member of the disciplined force. The civil appeal is accordingly

dismissed with no order as to costs. Pending interim application is

also disposed of.

…………………………………………..J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

…………………………………………..J. [ATUL S. CHANDURKAR] NEW DELHI, AUGUST 29, 2025.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2986 OF 2012 5