Calcutta High Court Rebukes CISF for Dismissing Constable Over Mobile Phone Use
The Calcutta High Court has delivered a landmark judgment, setting aside the removal of a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable who was dismissed for using a mobile phone while on duty. The court strongly criticized the disciplinary action, stating that punishment in uniformed forces must be proportionate to the fault and guided by humanity, rather than being a retributive exercise that results in "annihilation of the career."
Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay's Ruling on Proportionality
Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay, presiding over the case, emphasized that while misconduct cannot be condoned, it warrants correction without destroying an individual's livelihood. The court was hearing a plea from the CISF constable challenging his dismissal order issued by appellate and revisional authorities. The constable was accused of speaking on his mobile phone during night shifts and refusing to surrender the device to superiors.
The court clarified that the charges were proven only to the extent of discipline, not liability or gross misconduct justifying removal. In its February 6 order, the bench noted, "The misconduct itself cannot be condoned. It warrants correction, but not at the cost of annihilation of the career."
Court's Emphasis on Fairness and Constitutional Principles
The judgment highlighted that in matters of service discipline, fairness must act as a companion rather than an antagonist. A just punishment should not merely chastise but also reform, balancing disciplinary needs with constitutional functionality. The court asserted that uniformed forces demand heightened discipline, but the law does not sanction retributive measures.
"Proportionality requires that punishment be commensurate with fault, calibrated by fairness, guided by reason, and tempered by humanity," the order stated. It further categorized the constable's misconduct as indiscipline rather than moral turpitude or operational betrayal, noting that minor penalties alone cannot justify the ultimate penalty of removal unless the misconduct is of grave severity.
Details of the Disciplinary Proceedings
The disciplinary proceedings against the CISF constable originated from incidents in August and September 2013. He was accused of using his mobile phone during night and additional duty shifts and refusing to hand it over to superiors. During one encounter, he eventually surrendered two mobile phones and three SIM cards to a company commandant.
Authorities also cited his past record, which included five minor penalties for infractions such as:
- Absence from duty
- Brawling with a civilian
- An episode of theft within his duty area
It was alleged that the petitioner demonstrated persistent disregard for discipline, rendering him unfit to serve in a uniformed force. Following an enquiry under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001, he was removed from service in January 2014. This decision was upheld by appellate authority in 2014 and revisional authority in 2015 before the constable approached the high court.
Legal Arguments and Court's Final Observations
Advocate Sohini Samanta, representing the petitioner, argued that the proceedings were born of animus and bias, with the punishment bearing no proportional relation to the alleged misconduct. She also contended that natural justice was violated due to procedural irregularities, with findings based on surmise and pre-judgment rather than evidence.
Representing the Union of India, advocates Swapan Kumar Nandi and Banani Bhattacharya challenged the plea's maintainability, citing lack of statutory notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and delay in approaching the court.
The court concluded that the disciplinary authority failed to appreciate proportionality, relying excessively on minor past penalties, while revisional authorities mechanically affirmed the punishment without independent application of mind. The punishment of removal was deemed "shockingly compelling," prompting judicial intervention despite the court's limited jurisdiction in such matters.
This ruling reinforces the constitutional principle that while discipline is essential for security forces, fair procedure and measured responses are equally vital to prevent administrative extremism.
