Supreme Court Dismisses Special Leave Petition Against Removal from CISF Service — Upheld Disciplinary Action for Misconduct.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court addressed a special leave petition challenging the removal of a constable from the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) due to alleged suppression of a pending criminal case. The petitioner, appointed on 03.11.2007, faced disciplinary action after it was discovered that he had not disclosed his involvement in a criminal case under sections 323, 324, and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) during his appointment process. Following a departmental inquiry, he was initially penalized with a reduction in pay, but this was later escalated to removal from service on 09.03.2010. The petitioner contested this decision through various appeals, ultimately leading to a writ petition that was initially successful in reinstating him. However, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision, prompting the petitioner to seek redress from the Supreme Court. The court examined the principles established in previous judgments, particularly the case of Avtar Singh, which emphasized the importance of truthful disclosure in character verification for government service. The court found that the petitioner’s failure to disclose the pending criminal case constituted gross misconduct, justifying his removal from service. The court ruled that the disciplinary authority had acted within its jurisdiction and that the Single Bench had erred in its interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, affirming the Division Bench's decision and the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Justification for Removal - CISF Rules, 2001 - The court upheld the removal of the petitioner from service for gross misconduct due to suppression of a pending criminal case at the time of appointment, emphasizing the need for integrity in character verification for disciplined forces. The Division Bench's decision was found to be well-reasoned and justified, thus not warranting interference by the Single Bench (Paras 9-13).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the removal of the petitioner from service was justified based on the suppression of information regarding a pending criminal case.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, affirming the Division Bench's decision to uphold the removal of the petitioner from service for gross misconduct due to suppression of a pending criminal case.

Law Points

  • Judicial review
  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Suppression of facts
  • Character verification
  • CISF Rules
  • 2001
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (SC) (01) 250

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10499 of 2022

2023-01-16

Bela M. Trivedi, Ajay Rastogi

Asifa Rashid Mir, R. Bala Subramanian

Ex-Const/DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar

Union of India & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to removal from service based on disciplinary proceedings.

Remedy Sought

Reinstatement in service with consequential benefits.

Filing Reason

Alleged wrongful removal from service due to suppression of a pending criminal case.

Previous Decisions

Initial reinstatement by Single Bench, later reversed by Division Bench.

Issues

Whether the removal from service was justified based on the suppression of information regarding a pending criminal case.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel argued that the case was trivial and should not warrant removal. Respondents' counsel emphasized the importance of integrity in character verification for disciplined forces.

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized that suppression of material information during character verification is a serious misconduct justifying removal from service, particularly in disciplined forces like the CISF.

Judgment Excerpts

The Division Bench has allowed the D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 637 of 2021 filed by the respondents-Union of India. The involvement of the petitioner in the grave offences debarred him from the appointment to such force. The court is not inclined to exercise its limited jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Procedural History

The petitioner was initially removed from service on 09.03.2010, appealed unsuccessfully through various authorities, and had his removal set aside by a Single Bench on 16.02.2018, which was later reversed by the Division Bench on 16.11.2021.

Acts & Sections

  • CISF Rules, 2001: Rule 36, Rule 54
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Provisions of Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 Due to Legislative Competence. Provisions for Penalties on Clearing and Forwarding Agents Validated as Ancillary to Tax Levy under Entry 54 of List II.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail to Accused in SC/ST Atrocity Case — Alleged Caste-Based Insult Not in Public View. Court holds that Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 requires insult to be in public view, and p...