Mere intimation is not Compliance: HC backs CISF action against Constable who skipped duty

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has dismissed an intra court appeal filed by a CISF constable, upholding disciplinary punishment imposed for her failure to comply with a lawful movement order for Internal Security Duty in Delhi, reaffirming that members of a disciplined force cannot defy orders merely by citing personal inconvenience.

The case arose after a woman constable was directed to join Internal Security Duty at DMRC, Delhi, but chose not to report despite the order being lawfully issued by her superior authority. She had informed her superiors that it was not convenient for her to move due to family circumstances, including her husband’s posting and childcare responsibilities.

Disciplinary proceedings followed, culminating in a penalty of reduction in pay and treatment of her suspension period as “not on duty.” After her departmental appeal and revision failed, the constable challenged the action before the writ court, which declined interference, leading to the present appeal.

The Division Bench held that the central issue was undisputed non-compliance with a lawful order, which squarely attracted the statutory duty imposed under Section 10 of the CISF Act. Rejecting the argument that mere intimation amounted to compliance, the Court cautioned that such an interpretation would erode discipline in uniformed services, observing that “without permission of the competent authority, merely by giving an intimation the movement order could not be disobeyed.” 

The Bench found no procedural infirmity in the enquiry and ruled that the punishment was proportionate, concluding that neither the disciplinary order nor the writ court’s judgment warranted interference. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.