CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"The allegations are not only grave but also clearly fall within the parameters of Section 18 of the CISF Act, 1968, as the petitioner/respondent herein was involved in collecting huge amounts by promising to provide employment in the CISF." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling dated October 5, 2026, held that a CISF member soliciting money from civilians under the guise of providing employment constitutes "gross misconduct" falling squarely within the ambit of Section 18 of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Act, 1968.

A division bench of Justice D. Ramesh and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma set aside a Single Judge's order that had previously quashed a dismissal order based on a restrictive interpretation of the Act.

The respondent, a CISF constable, was dismissed from service in 2007 following disciplinary proceedings initiated by the department. The core charge involved the respondent conspiring with other personnel to extract large sums of money from local residents in Kerala, promising them induction into the CISF. The respondent challenged this dismissal in a writ petition, which the learned Single Judge allowed, relying on precedents from the Orissa and Calcutta High Courts, holding that Section 18 of the CISF Act did not authorize disciplinary action where the complainant was not a co-employee.

The primary question before the court was whether the disciplinary authority acted within its jurisdiction under Section 18 of the CISF Act, 1968, in initiating proceedings against a member of the force for fraudulent activities involving civilians. The court also examined whether the reliance placed by the Single Judge on the cases of T. Perumal and Badal Pal was appropriate in the context of the specific charges of bribery and corruption brought against the respondent.

Misconduct Involving Moral Turpitude

The court rejected the restrictive interpretation of Section 18 adopted by the Single Judge. It observed that the act of soliciting bribes for government jobs inherently touches upon the integrity of the force and falls within the definition of misconduct. Unlike cases involving purely private disputes or domestic matters which may not invite disciplinary oversight, acts of corruption directly undermine the discipline of the uniformed service.

Court Distinguishes Precedents

The bench emphasized that the precedents relied upon by the lower court were factually distinguishable. In those cases, the misconduct involved personal, private incidents—such as alleged elopement or domestic disputes—which lacked a nexus to the service. Conversely, in the present case, the respondent's conduct was intrinsically linked to his position as a CISF official, exploiting his status to commit fraud.

"The facts in the present case are totally different. Here the petitioner/respondent herein was involved in a case of extracting huge amounts from persons for providing jobs in CISF. Such conduct attracts the ingredients of misconduct or moral turpitude contemplated under Section 18 of the CISF Act, 1968."

Procedure under CISF Rules 2001

The appellants successfully demonstrated that the inquiry was conducted in strict adherence to Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001. The disciplinary authority provided the respondent with a copy of the inquiry report and afforded him full opportunity to submit his objections before the final order of dismissal was passed. The court found no procedural lapses or violations of natural justice in the conduct of the inquiry.

Division Bench Finds No Lapses

The court noted that the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent's co-accused had already been validated by the Kerala High Court, which found no illegality in the dismissal. Consequently, the bench held that the Single Judge’s decision to interfere with the disciplinary authority's findings without addressing the grave nature of the charges was contrary to the record.

"Considering the submissions and on perusal of the record, even in the instant case, there are no deviations, lapses or contraventions of the procedure contemplated under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001."

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. By confirming the original dismissal orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities, the court effectively restored the disciplinary action taken against the respondent for his role in the recruitment fraud.

Date of Decision: 05 October 2026