[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Shahin S vs Union Of India on 15 December, 2025
2025:KER:96698
W.P.(C). No.13425 of 2022
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13425 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SHAHIN S
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. SAINULABUDEEN, (CONSTABLE NO. 024350327),
C'COY', CISF UNIT, COCHIN PORT TRUST COCHIN,
RESIDING AT PUNKUDI HOUSE, PERUMANCHIRA,
KAZHAKUTTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695582.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.SANJAY
SHRI.SANIL KUMAR G.
SMTI.AFNAN DAWOOD
SMT.ASHINA SAKEER HUSSAIN
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW
DELHI, PIN - 110001.
2 THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY(SENIOR COMMANDANT),
CISF UNIT, CPT COCHIN, KERALA, PIN - 682017.
3 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL,
CISF, SOUTH ZONE, CHENNAI, PIN - 602105.
4 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL,
CISF, SOUTH ZONE, CHENNAI, PIN - 602105.
2025:KER:96698
W.P.(C). No.13425 of 2022
:2:
5 THE COY COMMANDER,
CPT COCHIN, KERALA, PIN - 682017.
BY ADV O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF
INDIA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:96698
W.P.(C). No.13425 of 2022
:3:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
W.P.(C) No.13425 of 2022
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 order.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ
petition are as follows:
The petitioner was an employee of the CISF Unit and while
working as Constable/GD of C'COY' of the CISF, who joined service
on 14.02.2002, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner on various allegations and charges as per Ext.P1
memorandum of charge. One of the allegations was that the
petitioner overstayed the sanctioned leave period of 5 days from
15.10.2014 to 19.10.2014 without prior consent of the competent
authority. The second charge was that the petitioner tarnished the
image of the CISF before the general public as well as local police
by showing sexual gestures against a woman in a public place and
thereby degrading the dignity of a woman. The 3 rd charge is that
he was found inebriated, hostile and not at all in control of himself
in a public place and further that the petitioner has not informed
2025:KER:96698
about the registration of the crime against him, to the employer.
Ext.P2 reply was filed by the petitioner denying all the charges.
Thereafter, Ext.P5 final order was issued, wherein it is held that all
the charges are proved against the petitioner and he was dismissed
from service. An appeal was preferred, but the order was
confirmed as per Ext.P6 and the revision filed was also dismissed
as per Ext.P7. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court
filing W.P.(C)No. 19970 of 2018, which was disposed of as per
Ext.P8 judgment directing reconsideration of the matter.
Thereafter, Ext.P9 representation was filed by the petitioner and
without considering any of the contentions in Ext.P9 and the
directions in Ext.P8 judgment, the request of the petitioner was
again rejected as per Ext.P10. It is aggrieved by the same that the
petitioner has approached this Court filing this writ petition.
3. The petitioner would submit that the punishment was
grossly disproportionate to the charges and that this Court in
Ext.P8 judgment has taken note of the fact the petitioner has been
acquitted of all the charges levelled against him in respect of
indecent behaviour towards a women, and upheld the other two
charges against the petitioner and the petitioner was permitted to
approach the CISF authorities with a prayer for imposition of a
2025:KER:96698
lesser punishment. The observation made by this Court in Ext.P8
was not at all considered by the authorities while issuing Ext.P10
order.
4. The learned DSG appearing for the respondents submits
that the direction in Ext.P8 judgment has been taken into
consideration while issuing Ext.P10 order and the fact that the
petitioner has been acquitted of the charges in a criminal case, is
not a reason to interfere with disciplinary proceedings initiated
against him. It is well settled principle of law that an order of
dismissal can be passed, even if the delinquent official has been
acquitted of the criminal charges. In support of the same, the
learned DSG relies on the judgment in the State of Rajasthan
and Ors. v. Heem Singh [(2021) 12 SCC 569]
5. Heard the rival contentions on both sides.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner is a member of the Disciplinary
Force. The charges leveled against him are, he overstayed the
sanctioned leave period of 5 days from 15.10.2014 to 19.10.2014
without prior consent of the competent authority, the petitioner
was in a inebriated condition and totally unable to control himself,
the registration of Crime No.1145/2014 of Udayamperoor Police
Station for indecent behaviour towards a women degrading the
2025:KER:96698
dignity of women by sexual gestures in a public place and the other
charge is that the said registration of the crime and the arrest of
the petitioner was not reported to the Superior officers. It is to be
seen that all other acts of the petitioner leading to charges 2 and 3
were during the period of overstay of the petitioner from
15.10.2014 to 19.10.2014. The petitioner would contend that he
has been acquitted of the criminal charges as per the judgment in
CC No.3419 of 2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Thripunithura and that the said aspect was taken into
consideration while issuing Ext.P8 judgment and the directions
contained therein were not taken into consideration while issuing
Ext.P10 order. A perusal of Ext.P8 judgment would reveal that this
Court has confirmed the findings against the petitioner on all
accounts, except that he has misbehaved with a lady and granted
liberty to approach the authorities with an appropriate petition to
reconsider the quantum of punishment imposed upon him and to
take a decision. In the said judgment an observation has been made
by this Court that it may not be misunderstood by any person
including the petitioner that the Court found that the punishment
imposed against the petitioner should be reviewed or that he is
deserving of lesser punishment, but only that he should be given
2025:KER:96698
the opportunity of approaching the competent Authority to
persuade him to take a different view, if it is possible in law.
Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that there is a categoric
finding regarding the non-involvement of the petitioner as regards
the 3rd charge is concerned, ie., indecent behaviour towards the
women, is without any basis. The authority considered the issue in
the light of Ext.P8 judgment and held that the departmental and
criminal actions are two different categories of actions having
separate procedures and that the acquittal of the petitioner from
the criminal charges has nothing to do with the departmental
action initiated against the petitioner, on a different set of charges.
A specific finding was also entered into in Ext.P10 to the effect that
Shri.C.K.Bijoy Chandran, SI of police, who is the investigating
officer in the crime, was examined as PW3 and a clarification
question was asked by the enquiry officer as to whether Smt. Laly,
against whom the alleged indecent behaviour was shown by the
petitioner, recognized the petitioner as the one who misbehaved
with her, and his answer was in conformity. It is also found in
Ext.P10 that there was no further cross examination from the part
of the petitioner on this point and therefore, the finding of the
enquiry officer that the charge regarding misbehaviour with a lady
2025:KER:96698
by the petitioner has been proved, cannot be found fault with. As
rightly found in Ext.P10, the degree of proof required in a
disciplinary enquiry is 'preponderance of probabilities' unlike in a
criminal trial, where the prosecution has to establish their case
'beyond reasonable doubt'.
7. The Apex Court in Heem Singh's case cited supra
considered the issue as to how an acquittal in a criminal case will
affect the departmental proceedings and held in paragraphs 30 and
34 as follows:
"30. We have to now assess as to whether in arriving at its
findings the High Court has transgressed the limitations on its
power of judicial review. In Moni Shankar v. Union of India,
(2008) 3 SCC 484, a two judge Bench of this Court had to
assess whether the Central Administrative Tribunal had
exceeded its power of judicial review by overturning the
findings of a departmental enquiry by re - appreciating the
evidence. In regard to the scope of judicial review, the Court
held thus:
"17. The departmental proceeding is a quasi - judicial one.
Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in
the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to
be complied with. The courts exercising power of judicial review
are entitled to consider as to whether while inferring commission
of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of
evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts
have been excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be based
on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. The
Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the
2025:KER:96698
premise that the evidence adduced by the Department, even if it
is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety, meet the
requirements of burden of proof, namely, preponderance of
probability. If on such evidence, the test of the doctrine of
proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal was within its
domain to interfere. We must place on record that the doctrine of
unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine of proportionality.
(See State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava[(2006) 3 SCC
276 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 521] and Coimbatore District Central
Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn. [(2007) 4 SCC 669 : (2007) 2 SCC
(L&S) 68] )"
(emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
34. In the present case, we have an acquittal in a criminal
trial on a charge of murder. The judgment of the Sessions Court
is a reflection of the vagaries of the administration of criminal
justice. The judgment contains a litany of hostile witnesses, and
of the star witness resiling from his statements. Our precedents
indicate that acquittal in a criminal trial in such circumstances
does not conclude a disciplinary enquiry. In Southern Railway
Officers Association v. Union of India, (2009) 9 SCC 24, this
Court held:
"37. Acquittal in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for
interfering with an order of punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority. The High Court did not say that the said
fact had not been taken into consideration. The revisional
authority did so.It is now a well - settled principle of law that the
order of dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent official
had been acquitted of the criminal charge."
(emphasis supplied)
In Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, (2013)
1 SCC 598, a two - Judge Bench of this Court held that
unless the accused has an "honorable acquittal" in their
2025:KER:96698
criminal trial, as opposed to an acquittal due to
witnesses turning hostile or for technical reasons, the
acquittal shall not affect the decision in the disciplinary
proceedings and lead to automatic reinstatement. But
the penal statutes governing substance or procedure do
not allude to an "honourable acquittal". Noticing this,
the Court observed:
"Honourable acquittal
24. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal" came
up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh
Panchal [(1994) 1 SCC 541 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 594 : (1994) 26
ATC 619] . In that case, this Court has considered the impact of
Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal
court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court
held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to
reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be
honourable. The expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquitted of
blame", "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Code of Criminal
Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial
pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant
by the expression "honourably acquitted". When the accused is
acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and
that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges
levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the
accused was honourably acquitted.
25. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 787] it was held
that even in the case of acquittal, departmental proceedings may
follow where the acquittal is other than honourable. In State of
Assam v. Raghava Rajgopalachari [1972 SLR 44 (SC)] this Court
quoted with approval the views expressed by Lord Williams, J. in
Robert Stuart Wauchope v. Emperor [ILR (1934) 61 Cal 168]
which is as follows: (Raghava case [1972 SLR 44 (SC)] , SLR p.
47, para 8)
"8. ... 'The expression "honourably acquitted" is one which is
unknown to courts of justice. Apparently it is a form of order
used in courts martial and other extrajudicial tribunals. We said
in our judgment that we accepted the explanation given by the
appellant, believed it to be true and considered that it ought to
2025:KER:96698
have been accepted by the government authorities and by the
Magistrate. Further, we decided that the appellant had not
misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus
clear that the effect of our judgment was that the appellant was
acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be
acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what government
authorities term "honourably acquitted".'" (Robert Stuart case
[ILR (1934) 61 Cal 168] , ILR pp. 188-89)
26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision
in the service rules for reinstatement, if an employee is
honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on
the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement.
Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a
person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by
way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal
case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the
prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law
that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a
criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and
preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases
where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the
prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other
witnesses turned hostile, etc. In the case on hand the prosecution
did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on
the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The
court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of
doubt. We are not prepared to say that in the instant case, the
respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and
even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the
Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so." (emphasis added)"
A perusal of the order of acquittal in CC No.3419 of 2015, a copy of
which is handed over by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, would reveal that the petitioner has been acquitted only
for the reason that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence
2025:KER:96698
alleged against the petitioner beyond the reasonable doubt. The
Apex Court in Heem Singh's case and in a catena of judgments
has considered this issue and held that only in cases of 'honourable
acquittal' or 'fully exonerated' that such an acquittal have an
impact on the disciplinary proceedings, which has already been
initiated based on a different set of charges. Since the acquittal
was only giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner, I am of the
view that the acquittal can have an impact on the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner is a
member of the Disciplinary Force and the charges levelled against
him are very serious and have been proved in an enquiry.
Therefore, I am of the view that the acquittal of the petitioner in a
criminal case, cannot be a reason for entering into a finding in his
favour in the disciplinary proceedings and that Ext.P10 order has
been issued after considering the rival contentions on both sides
and after going into the merits of the matter.
I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and the
writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sm/
2025:KER:96698
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 13425 OF 2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CHARGES
DATED 08.12.2014 ALONG WITH ARTICLES OF
CHARGE, STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS AND LIST
OF DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17.12.2014
GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INQUIRY REPORT DATED
10.03.2015 SUBMITTED TO THE DISCIPLINARY
AUTHORITY.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.03.2015
TO ENQUIRY REPORT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER OF
PUNISHMENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
NO. V-15014/CPT/DISC/KAN-03/SS/2014/1809
DATED 15.04.2015.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
11014(1)/APPEAL/17/SS/SZ/(L&R)2015-6736
DATED 08.10.2015 ISSUED BY APPELLATE
AUTHORITY.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
V-15014/SS/REV/L&R/SHA/28/2017-114 DATED
04.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
IN THE REVISION PETITION.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
24.02.2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO.
19970/2018.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE
PETITION DATED 13.04.2021 FILED IN
PURSUANCE TO P8 JUDGMENT.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2021
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON P9
REQUEST.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2(a) True copy of Senior Commandant CISF Unit
CPT Cochin Charge Memorandum No. V-
15014/CPT/Disc/Maj-03/SS/2014/6801 dated
08.12.2014
2025:KER:96698
Exhibit R2(b) True copy of the report dated 10.03.2015
Exhibit R2(c) A true copy of the final Order No.V-
15014/CPT/Disc/Maj-03/SS/2014/1809 dated
15.04.2015
Exhibit R2(e) A copy of IG CISF SS HQrs Chennai Order
No V 15014 SS Rev L R Sha 28 2017 114
dated 04 01 2017
Exhibit R2(d) True copy of the DIG CISF SZ HQrs Chennai
Appellate Authority Order No. 11014 (1)
Appeal/17/ SS/SZ(L and R)/ 2015- 6736
dated 08.10.2015
