-
by sayum
15 August 2026 5:59 AM
Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, dismissed a writ petition challenging a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable's dismissal, holding that courts cannot interfere with departmental penalties when domestic inquiries strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice.
A bench of Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed that the petitioner's 15-year service record, marked by 12 prior punishments for indiscipline, warranted no leniency while dealing with grave misconduct committed in a sensitive terrorist-affected zone.
The petitioner, Constable Sukhbir Singh, served in the CISF Unit at HMT Srinagar in Jammu and Kashmir. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him after he was allegedly found sleeping with his arms on duty at the factory outer gate, followed by subsequent acts of insubordination, including storming the Company Commandant's office, stripping his uniform insignia, placing his SLR against the wall, and verbally abusing superior officers. Aggrieved by the enquiry report and subsequent appellate orders upholding his punishment, the constable approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The primary question before the court was whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, could interfere with concurrent departmental findings of guilt and the resultant punishment of dismissal. The court was also called upon to determine whether procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice had been duly observed during the domestic inquiry.
Court Examines Nature Of Charges
The bench noted that the charges framed against the petitioner were multi-fold, encompassing sleeping on duty in a terrorist-affected area, forcibly entering the Commandant's office to surrender his uniform in defiance, and hurling abuses at duty officers. The court observed that the petitioner was granted full opportunity of hearing, permitted to cross-examine witnesses, and defended through proper procedural safeguards.
"No Malafide Or Procedural Lapses Found"
The court emphasized that the departmental authorities followed all procedural mandates under the Central Industrial Security Force Rules. There was no evidence of malafide intent or arbitrary exercise of power by the disciplinary authority.
Habitual Indiscipline In Sensitive Zone
Highlighting the gravity of the location, the bench noted that the petitioner was deployed in Jammu and Kashmir, a terrorist-affected area where security responsibilities are paramount. His past service record reflected 12 prior punishments under Rules 34 and 35 of the CISF Rules, demonstrating a chronic failure to improve his conduct despite repeated departmental warnings.
Supreme Court Precedents On Judicial Review
Relying extensively on authoritative precedents of the Supreme Court, including Union of India v. Dalbir Singh, State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, the bench reiterated the settled legal position that judicial review is directed against the decision-making process and not the decision itself. The High Court cannot act as a second court of first appeal to reappreciate evidence adduced during a domestic inquiry.
"High Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence"
The bench underscored that strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act do not apply to departmental proceedings, where findings rest on a preponderance of probability rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Unless an inquiry violates statutory rules, principles of natural justice, or is based on "no evidence," courts must maintain absolute restraint.
Petition Dismissed By Court
Concluding that the impugned enquiry report and appellate orders suffered from no legal infirmity, perversity, or procedural lapse, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The disciplinary orders passed against the delinquent constable were consequently affirmed in their entirety.
Date of Decision: 04 August 2026
