CISF Personnel Making Unsubstantiated Sexual Harassment Allegations Against Colleagues Can Be Removed From Service: Delhi High Court

"In a disciplined force, making unsubstantiated allegations against colleagues, misbehaving with superior officers, and bypassing chain of command have serious implications for discipline," Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated May 14, 2026, held that the removal of a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel from service is justified when found guilty of making unsubstantiated sexual harassment complaints and demonstrating habitual indiscipline.

\A bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the High Court does not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters and can only interfere if the proceedings are vitiated by a patent illegality or shocking disproportion of punishment.

The petitioner, appointed as a CISF Constable in 2015, challenged her removal from service following a departmental inquiry into four articles of charge. These charges included making unsubstantiated sexual harassment allegations against multiple colleagues, misbehaving with superior officers, and bypassing the official chain of command by involving local police. Despite having been penalized on three prior occasions for similar misconduct, the petitioner’s behaviour did not improve, leading to her removal by the Disciplinary Authority, a decision subsequently upheld by the appellate and revisional authorities.

The primary question before the court was whether the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice. The court was also called upon to determine whether the penalty of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct, particularly regarding the handling of sexual harassment complaints within a disciplined force.

High Court Not An Appellate Authority In Disciplinary Matters

At the outset, the Court clarified the boundaries of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding service disputes. The bench noted that interference in disciplinary matters is warranted only in specific circumstances, such as a violation of natural justice, perversity in findings, or patent procedural illegality.

The Court emphasized that it is not the role of the judiciary to re-appreciate evidence already considered by the inquiry officer. It held that so long as the findings are based on some evidence and are not perverse, the High Court will not substitute its own view for that of the disciplinary authority.

No Natural Justice Violation If Employee Fails To Cooperate

Addressing the petitioner’s claim that she was denied a fair opportunity, the Court found that she had participated in the departmental inquiry and was served with all relevant notices. The bench noted that the petitioner could not allege a violation of natural justice when her own non-cooperation led to certain proceedings being concluded ex parte.

Specifically regarding the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) proceedings, the Court observed that the petitioner had failed to cooperate with the inquiry into her sexual harassment allegations. The bench remarked that "the Petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own non-cooperation to allege violation of natural justice" when the Committee was forced to conclude its findings in her absence.

Treatment Of Unsubstantiated Sexual Harassment Complaints As Misconduct

The Court dealt extensively with the petitioner's argument that she was being victimized for raising sexual harassment complaints. While acknowledging the sensitivity of such allegations, the bench noted that the disciplinary action was not for the act of complaining, but for the finding that the allegations were false and intended to harass colleagues.

The Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were based on the findings that the allegations "resulted in adverse consequences including tarnishing of the image of the concerned personnel, mental harassment, and misuse of the process relating to sexual harassment complaints, thereby constituting misconduct."

Importance Of Maintaining Chain Of Command In Uniformed Forces

The bench took a serious view of the petitioner’s conduct in bypassing the internal hierarchy to involve external police authorities for internal grievances. It noted that the petitioner had displayed "abnormal conduct" and used "indecent language" toward superior officers while threatening them with criminal proceedings.

The Court observed that in a disciplined force like the CISF, such actions have a detrimental effect on the morale and order of the unit. The bench noted that the "misuse of police machinery and conduct unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force" were gravity-laden charges that were duly proved during the inquiry.

Past Conduct Is A Relevant Factor In Determining Penalty

The Court highlighted that the petitioner was a "habitual and incorrigible" offender, having been subjected to three disciplinary penalties in the past for acts of misconduct. The bench held that in the context of uniformed forces, the past record of an employee is a vital consideration for the disciplinary authority when deciding the extent of the penalty.

"In service jurisprudence, particularly in the context of uniformed forces, past conduct is a relevant factor for determining the nature and extent of penalty. The consideration of the Petitioner’s previous record by the disciplinary authority cannot, therefore, be faulted."

Removal From Service Not Shockingly Disproportionate

In its concluding analysis, the Court rejected the plea that the punishment of removal was excessive. It underscored that a high standard of conduct, restraint, and adherence to hierarchy is expected from members of a disciplined force. The bench found that the cumulative effect of making false allegations and misbehaving with superiors justified the extreme penalty.

The Court held that "the penalty imposed cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate so as to warrant interference" given the nature of the proved charges. The bench emphasized that the integrity and discipline of the force outweigh individual grievances when those grievances are found to be unsubstantiated and malicious.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the orders of removal from service passed by the CISF authorities. The Court concluded that the proceedings followed the prescribed legal procedure and the findings of fact did not suffer from any perversity that would require judicial intervention.

Date of Decision: 14 May 2026