The Calcutta High Court has affirmed the compulsory retirement of a Central Industrial Security Force constable who engaged in a physical altercation involving a service weapon with a colleague, ruling that such behaviour is incompatible with the standards expected of an armed force.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta dismissed a petition filed by the former constable challenging his disciplinary penalty, which was imposed following a 2013 scuffle. In an order issued on September 9, the court stated that engaging in a physical confrontation with a fellow service member, whether during or outside duty hours, and taking recourse to an issued firearm constitutes conduct unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force.
Court Rejects Definitional Challenge
Addressing the petitioner’s argument that the term misconduct lacks a specific statutory definition under the CISF Rules, Justice Gupta observed that the absence of a codified definition does not render a misconduct charge vague or invalid when the underlying conduct directly conflicts with the discipline the force is required to maintain.
The court further concluded that the departmental proceedings against the petitioner adhered to principles of natural justice and contained no procedural irregularities, adding that such quarrels are entirely unacceptable within the CISF.
Details of the 2013 Altercation
The disciplinary action stems from an incident that occurred at approximately 8:50 p.m. on February 4, 2013, roughly ten minutes before the petitioner was scheduled to begin a night shift. A personal disagreement between the petitioner and another constable, who had just finished his shift, escalated into a physical fight.
During the brawl, the other constable allegedly seized a wood-cutter, prompted by which the petitioner reached for his service rifle. One of the constables suffered a fractured ring finger in the clash. Following an internal inquiry, departmental authorities held both personnel guilty of quarrelling and indiscipline.
The disciplinary authority subsequently ordered the petitioner’s compulsory retirement from service, while preserving his pension eligibility.
History of Prior Disciplinary Penalties
The petitioner, who enlisted in the CISF on July 4, 1994, had previously challenged the disciplinary outcome through statutory channels. His appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on February 28, 2014, and a subsequent revision petition filed before the Inspector General was also turned down, leading to the High Court petition.
In court, Senior Advocate Rabindranath Bag and Advocate Piyas Chowdhury, representing the petitioner, argued that their client had been falsely implicated and penalised without adequate evidence or a defined legal basis for gross misconduct under force rules.
Opposing the plea, advocates Debapriya Gupta and Moni Shankar Sengupta, appearing for the CISF authorities, pointed out that the petitioner had accumulated 12 previous disciplinary punishments for improper behaviour and illicit conduct across his career, failing to reform despite repeated warnings. The High Court took note of this disciplinary record while confirming the termination of his service.
