Misconduct Not Constrained by Duty Hours: Bombay High Court Upholds Penalty for CISF Constable’s Off-Duty Misbehavior”

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court in the case of Arvind Kumar vs. Smt. Laxmi Sanjay Nikam & Others, dismissed a writ petition challenging disciplinary action against a CISF constable. The court underscored that misconduct is not limited by duty hours, emphasizing that government servants must uphold integrity and proper conduct ‘at all times’.

The core issue revolved around whether a government servant’s conduct outside of duty hours could be subjected to disciplinary action under the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The petitioner, Arvind Kumar, a CISF Constable, was penalized for knocking on a female neighbor’s door late at night during the absence of her husband, which was deemed as misconduct and unbecoming of a government servant.

Arvind Kumar was penalized with a pay reduction for three years without increments for his alleged misconduct. The departmental enquiry, which included testimonies and the petitioner’s admission of the incident and consumption of alcohol prior to it, led to the conclusion of his unbecoming conduct. Kumar’s appeals to higher authorities were unsuccessful, leading him to challenge the disciplinary action under Article 226.

The court meticulously analyzed the evidence and the applicability of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It was emphasized that these rules require government servants to maintain integrity and appropriate conduct at all times, not just during official duty hours. The bench, comprising Justices Nitin Jamdar and M.M. Sathaye, found that the petitioner’s actions, especially given the absence of the husband of the complainant and the frivolous reason provided for knocking on her door, were preposterous and certainly unbecoming of a CISF officer.

The High Court, affirming the findings of the disciplinary authorities and the applicability of conduct rules at all times, dismissed the writ petition. The bench ruled that the disciplinary action was justified, and there was no error, perversity, or jurisdictional overreach in the impugned orders.

Date of Decision: 11 March 2024

Arvind Kumar vs. Smt. Laxmi Sanjay Nikam & Others