The Indian Express ·
Crime, law and justice
Using service weapon in brawl ‘unbecoming’ of CISF member, rules Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court upheld the punishment of a CISF constable, ruling that misconduct need not have a statutory definition when the conduct violates the discipline expected of an armed force.
The Calcutta High Court has upheld a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable’s compulsory retirement over a 2013 scuffle with a fellow constable. When a member of an armed force gets into a physical fight with a colleague, whether on or off duty, and uses a service weapon, it is clear proof of “unbecoming” of “one of the disciplined Forces of India”, the court ruled.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta was hearing a plea filed by a man who was a constable with CISF but was punished with compulsory retirement because he was found guilty of “misconduct” and “engaging in an altercation” with a fellow constable.
“The absence of a codified definition does not leave the term at large; conduct involving a physical scuffle with a fellow member of a disciplined, armed force, in the course of duty or even out of duty hours, and involving recourse to a service weapon, is evidently conduct unbecoming of a member of such a force,” the September 9 order read.
On the argument that the term ‘misconduct’ was not defined in law, the high court observed that “a charge of misconduct is not rendered vague or void merely for want of a statutory definition where the conduct alleged is intrinsically incompatible with the discipline the force is expected to maintain.”
The man, who had joined CISF in 1994, was supposed to begin his night shift at 9 pm on February 4, 2013, when at around 8:50 pm he got into a quarrel with a fellow constable who had just completed his shift.
The altercation, which arose out of a personal dispute, soon escalated into a physical scuffle, during which the constable suffered a fracture to his ring finger. According to the judgment, there were allegations that during the fight the constable first picked up a wood-cutter, whereupon the man (also a constable) picked up his service rifle.
Subsequently, both the man and the constable were charged with undisciplined activities and were found guilty of quarrelling after a departmental enquiry. It came on record that after considering the enquiry report and proceedings, the disciplinary authority imposed compulsory retirement from service on the man, with him being eligible for pension.
The man contended that he approached the appellate authority against the punishment, but his plea was dismissed on February 28, 2014. Further, the man invoked a revisional remedy before the Inspector General, but that too was rejected, forcing him to approach the High Court.
The high court noted that “the petitioner (the man) joined the Central Industrial Security Force (in short, ‘CISF’) on July 4, 1994. During his tenure of service, admittedly, he was punished on 12 occasions for ill behaviour and illegal deeds”.
While dismissing the plea of the man, the high court was of the view that “no procedural irregularity was found in the departmental proceedings, and furthermore the principles of natural justice were duly observed” and “this type of quarrel is unexpected from a cadre of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) after all, it is one of the disciplined Forces of India”.
Senior advocate Rabindranath Bag and advocate Piyas Chowdhury, appearing for the man, argued that he had been falsely implicated in the present case and the disciplinary authority found him guilty without any reasonable material and explanation.
The counsel contended that though the man was compulsorily retired based on the alleged quarrel and the incident was called ‘gross misconduct’ however, the term ‘misconduct’ has not been specifically defined in the CISF Rules.
Advocates Debapriya Gupta and Moni Shankar Sengupta, representing the authorities, submitted that the man’s conduct was against the force and he had been punished earlier on 12 occasions but did not rectify himself and continued his behaviour despite cautions.