CISF Constable Disciplinary Case: Supreme Court Upholds Penalty for Misconduct
In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of discipline in armed forces, the Supreme Court of India recently dismissed the appeal of a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable who challenged the penalty imposed on him for misconduct. The case, which spanned nearly three decades of legal proceedings, highlights the strict standards of conduct expected from members of disciplined forces and the judiciary’s reluctance to interfere with departmental disciplinary actions.
The legal battle began in 1995 when Constable Amar Singh was serving at the Mallaram Camp and found himself at the center of disciplinary proceedings that would eventually reach the highest court of the land. The case serves as an important precedent regarding the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters involving armed forces personnel and the balance between individual rights and organizational discipline.
The Incident and Charges
On August 27, 1995, Constable Amar Singh was issued an out-pass to visit a hospital between 10:00 AM to 12:00 noon. However, instead of proceeding to the hospital as permitted, he was found at a residential colony approximately 12 kilometers from his camp. The disciplinary authorities charged him with two specific violations: first, that he had left the camp without prior permission, and second, that he had trespassed into the family quarters of Mr. Jhan Mohammed and indulged in unwarranted activities that affected the reputation of the force among civilians.
The appellant was immediately placed under suspension on August 28, 1995, marking the beginning of a lengthy disciplinary process. He denied both charges during the proceedings, setting the stage for a detailed inquiry that would examine the evidence and circumstances surrounding his unauthorized movements.
Disciplinary Proceedings and Initial Findings
The disciplinary inquiry followed established procedures, with the respondents examining two witnesses while the appellant chose to examine himself in his defense. After considering all evidence, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on December 16, 1997, concluding that both charges against the appellant had been proved.
The Disciplinary Authority, acting on this report, imposed a significant penalty on January 17, 1998. The appellant’s pay was reduced to the minimum of the pay-scale under the Fifth Pay Commission for three years starting February 1, 1998, with future increments being withheld during this reduction period. This initial penalty reflected the seriousness with which the authorities viewed the breach of discipline.
Appellate Review and Penalty Modification
Constable Amar Singh exercised his right to appeal against the disciplinary order. The Appellate Authority, while agreeing with the findings recorded in the inquiry report, demonstrated a measure of leniency by concluding that the original penalty was excessive. On April 23, 1998, the authority modified the punishment, directing reduction of the appellant’s pay-scale by one stage for two years from February 1, 1998, during which he would not be entitled to earn any increment.
This modification represented a significant reduction in the severity of the punishment while still maintaining the disciplinary action’s corrective purpose. The reduced penalty acknowledged the proven misconduct while providing the appellant an opportunity for rehabilitation within the force.
High Court Challenge
Unsatisfied with the appellate outcome, the appellant approached the Delhi High Court, challenging the penalty order. The Division Bench conducted a detailed examination of the case, carefully analyzing the inquiry report and the evidence on record.
The High Court made an important distinction in its analysis. It held that the first charge—leaving the camp without prior permission—had not been proved since the appellant had indeed been issued an out-pass. However, regarding the second charge, the court found compelling evidence that supported the misconduct allegations.
The court noted that despite having permission to visit the hospital, the appellant was found 12 kilometers away from the camp at a residential colony. Crucially, the evidence revealed that civilians had detained the appellant due to his behavior, requiring intervention from his superior officers. Only after Inspector Lakra assured the agitated civilians that departmental action would be taken against the appellant was he permitted to leave.
While the court found no direct evidence of trespass into Mr. Jhan Mohammed’s family quarters, it concluded that the appellant had indeed indulged in unwarranted activities that agitated the civilians and affected the force’s reputation. The High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, finding the modified penalty commensurate with the wrongdoing.
Supreme Court’s Final Verdict
The matter finally reached the Supreme Court, where a bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar heard arguments from both sides. Mr. K.L. Janjani represented the appellant, while Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appeared for the respondents.
After thorough examination of the inquiry report, disciplinary orders, and the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court expressed its satisfaction with the lower court’s reasoning. The court noted several key factual admissions made by the appellant during his deposition that significantly weakened his case.
The Supreme Court observed that “Undisputedly, the appellant was issued an out-pass on 27.08.1995 to enable him to visit the hospital between 10:00 AM to 12:00 noon on that day. Instead of visiting the hospital, the appellant was found at the residential colony at a distance about 12 kms from his Camp.” This fundamental contradiction between the permitted purpose and actual action formed the core of the misconduct case.
Most damaging to the appellant’s position were his own admissions during the proceedings. The court noted that “The appellant in his deposition was unable to produce any document with regard to his visit to the hospital. He admitted that he had visited the residential colony to enquire about the quarters allotted to another constable. He further admitted that he had been confined by the civilians at the residential colony and it was only after the arrival of his superior, Inspector Lakra who had assured the gathering that departmental inquiry would be held against the appellant was he permitted to go.”
These admissions provided compelling evidence that supported the second charge of misconduct, even if the trespass allegation remained unproven. The court agreed with the High Court’s reasoning that “though the first limb of charge No. 1 was not established, the other limb of the said charge read with charge No. 2 had been proved.”
Legal Principles and Discretionary Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court’s decision rested on important legal principles governing judicial review of disciplinary matters, particularly concerning armed forces. The court emphasized that “The High Court having examined the entire matter in detail and there being no grievance raised by the appellant of breach of principles of natural justice during the course of the disciplinary proceedings, we do not find that this is a fit case to exercise discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, more so when the appellant is a member of the disciplined force.”
This statement underscores several crucial aspects of administrative law. First, it reaffirms that courts generally do not interfere with disciplinary matters unless there is a clear violation of natural justice or procedural fairness. Second, it highlights the particular deference accorded to disciplinary decisions involving armed forces personnel, given the critical importance of maintaining discipline in such organizations.
The reference to Article 136 of the Constitution is particularly significant. This provision grants the Supreme Court special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed by any court or tribunal. However, the court exercises this power sparingly, especially in service matters where specialized administrative bodies have already applied their expertise.
Broader Implications and Conclusion
This judgment carries important implications for disciplinary proceedings across all armed forces and disciplined organizations in India. It reinforces the principle that members of disciplined forces are held to higher standards of conduct, both during and outside duty hours. The case demonstrates that even when technical charges may not be fully proved, substantive misconduct that affects the organization’s reputation can warrant disciplinary action.
The Supreme Court’s decision also illustrates the balanced approach taken by judicial authorities in such matters. While the courts ensured that the appellant received a fair hearing at multiple levels and even benefited from a reduced penalty at the appellate stage, they ultimately respected the disciplinary authorities’ judgment in maintaining organizational discipline.
The three-decade journey of this case—from the initial incident in 1995 to the Supreme Court’s final verdict in 2025—serves as a reminder of the thoroughness of India’s judicial process and the importance accorded to principles of natural justice. At the same time, it underscores the judiciary’s recognition that certain organizations, particularly armed forces, require strict disciplinary standards to function effectively and maintain public trust.
For serving members of disciplined forces, this judgment reiterates the importance of adhering to authorized movements and maintaining conduct that upholds their organization’s reputation. For administrative authorities, it provides judicial affirmation of their disciplinary powers while emphasizing the need for proportionate penalties based on proven misconduct.
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the civil appeal brings finality to this long-standing case, upholding the modified penalty as appropriate for the established misconduct while respecting the hierarchical disciplinary processes within India’s armed forces structure.
Petitioner Name: Const. Amar Singh.Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..Judgment By: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.Place Of Incident: Mallaram Camp.Judgment Date: 29-08-2025.Result: dismissed.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: const.-amar-singh-vs-union-of-india-&-ors-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-29-08-2025.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by P.S. Narasimha
See all petitions in Judgment by Atul S. Chandurkar
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
