The division Bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi of the Apex court in the case of Ex-Const/ DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar Vs Union of India & Ors held that CISF being an armed force of Union of India, is deployed in sensitive sectors such as airports, ports, department of atomic energy, department of space, metro, power, and steel, for internal security duty, etc., and therefore, the force personnel is required to maintain the discipline of the highest order.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case was that the Petitioner was appointed as a constable in the CISF in 2007. Thereafter, in April 2009, the Petitioner received a notice under Rule 36 of CISF Rules 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). It was alleged that the Petitioner concealed the fact that he was a party to a criminal case for the offence under sections 323, 324, and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at the time he submitted the verification of his character certificate. Thereafter, it was also stated that the act of omitting information about the status of the criminal litigation from his character certificate, which was submitted with the appointment letter, fell under the category of gross misconduct and indiscipline, making him ineligible to be appointed in the CISF, a very disciplined police force.
Thereafter, departmental proceedings were initiated against him. However, the Commandant Discipline, CISF keeping in view the young age and prospects of the petitioner, imposed punishment of reduction of pay. Later, the Deputy Inspector General took suo moto and again started departmental proceedings against the Petitioner, which resulted in the removal of the Petitioner from service. The Petitioner had filed a departmental appeal, however, the said appeal was dismissed. The revision petition filed also came to be dismissed.
The Petitioner filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court in which the Single Judge bench stated that he was not found suitable for the appointment in CISF for the post of constable/GD. The Petitioner again filed a writ petition in which the Single Bench set aside the said order and allowed the writ petition directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was contended that the Petitioner was involved in a criminal case when he was just 19 years old. The case ended in a compromise between the parties, and the Trial Court terminated the case based on that compromise on 21.11. 2007, and the Petitioner was commissioned in the CISF on 3.11.2007. It was further contended that even though if a deliberate suppression of the facts by the Petitioner as alleged by the Respondents was found to have taken place at the time of filing the character certificate, a lenient view should have been taken by the Respondents after taking into consideration his age and the fact that the Petitioner had accepted his mistake.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was contended that the Petitioner was found to have committed gross misconduct by concealing the crucial fact of his involvement in the criminal case at the time of seeking an appointment and therefore, could not have remained in service.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that the Petitioner was appointed in CISF and a criminal case was pending against him at the time of his enrolment in the force. He did not reveal the same and that there was a deliberate suppression of facts which was an aggravating circumstance. It was also held that CISF being an armed force of the Union of India is deployed in sensitive sectors such as airports, ports, the department of atomic energy, the department of space, metro, power, and steel, for internal security duty, etc., and therefore, the force personnel is required to maintain the discipline of the highest order. The involvement of the Petitioner in such grave offences debarred him from the appointment. Such a well-reasoned and well-considered decision of the Respondent authorities should not have been interfered with by the Single Bench in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when there were no allegations of mala fides or non-observance of rules of natural justice or breach of statutory rules.
The decision of the Court:
The Petitioner having been found to have committed gross misconduct right at the threshold of entering into disciplined force like CISF and the Respondent having passed the order of his removal from service after following due process of law and without actuated by mala fides, the Court refused to exercise its limited jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the special leave petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Ex-Const/ DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar Vs Union of India & Ors
Case No: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10499 of 2022
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 28 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Syed Mehdi Imam
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Arvind Kumar Sharma
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
