Merely Having an Out-Pass Doesn’t Justify Indiscipline: Supreme Court Upholds Penalty on CISF Constable for Conduct Unbecoming of Armed Force Member

“When a Member of a Disciplined Force is Detained by Civilians for Unwarranted Conduct, It Affects the Reputation of the Force and Merits Departmental Action” —  Supreme Court of India refused to interfere with the punishment imposed on a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable, holding that the penalty was proportionate to the misconduct and consistent with the standards expected of members of a disciplined force. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Delhi High Court’s affirmation of disciplinary action.

“Departure With Permission Doesn’t Absolve Misconduct During Leave”: Apex Court Dissects Charges of Indiscipline and Public Misconduct

The appellant, Constable Amar Singh, was serving at the Mallaram Camp of CISF when, on 27.08.1995, he was issued an out-pass for visiting a hospital between 10:00 AM to 12:00 noon. However, instead of going to the hospital, he was found at a residential colony approximately 12 km away, reportedly enquiring about the quarters allotted to another constable. According to the charge, the appellant had entered the area without proper cause and was subsequently detained by civilians, creating a public incident that led to the intervention of senior officers.

The disciplinary authority held that Singh had indulged in "gross indiscipline and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union", a charge that was upheld in part by the Inquiry Officer's Report dated 16.12.1997. Though the first limb of the charge—leaving camp without permission—was later disproved, the second charge relating to his unwarranted conduct among civilians was found to be established.

The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of reduction to the minimum of the pay-scale for three years and withheld future increments. On appeal, the Appellate Authority modified this to reduction by one stage for two years, with no increment during that period.

“Discipline Must Prevail in Uniformed Services”: High Court and Supreme Court Affirm Procedural Fairness and Proportionate Punishment

Before the Delhi High Court, the appellant contested the disciplinary findings. The Court carefully evaluated the record and held that while Singh had formal permission to leave camp, his subsequent conduct—being found far from the permitted location and causing a disturbance among civilians—was sufficient to sustain the misconduct charge.

The High Court ruled: “The appellant was at a distance of about 12 kms from the Camp instead of the hospital and had been detained by civilians on account of indulging in some unwarranted activity. Though there was no evidence of trespass, the fact that he was released only after senior officers assured departmental action was sufficient to conclude misconduct affecting the Force’s reputation.”

The Supreme Court, endorsing this view, observed that Singh’s own deposition admitted the core facts — that he went to a civilian colony without visiting the hospital, that he was held by locals, and that his superiors had to intervene.

The Court remarked:

“The High Court rightly found that the first charge... had not been proved. However... the other limb of the said charge read with charge No. 2 had been proved... The civilians were agitated... thereby affecting the reputation of the Force.”

“No Breach of Natural Justice, No Constitutional Grounds for Interference”: Article 136 Jurisdiction Not Invoked

Emphasizing the settled principle that interference under Article 136 of the Constitution is exceptional, the Court refused to intervene, stating:

“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... more so when the appellant is a member of the disciplined force.”

The Supreme Court underlined the critical importance of discipline, propriety, and public conduct in uniformed services, reinforcing that even conduct outside the camp premises must uphold the dignity of the service.

Discipline Prevails Over Technical Pleas

Constable Amar Singh’s attempt to overturn the penalty on technical grounds was unsuccessful. The Court upheld the revised penalty imposed by the Appellate Authority, noting that it was commensurate with the wrong committed and there was no procedural irregularity warranting interference.

This judgment serves as a stern reminder that members of disciplined forces are held to higher standards, and even seemingly minor acts of indiscipline — especially those causing civilian unrest — are taken seriously under military jurisprudence.

Date of Decision: August 29, 2025