Mere Non-Use Of Spy Pen Camera Not Mitigating Circumstance: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Order Reducing Punishment Of CISF Constable

The High Court was considering a Petition challenging an order reducing the punishment against a member of the force.

The Division Bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas stated, “When Members of such a force, who are enjoined with duty for maintenance of security of such installations, are found carrying a spy pen camera with memory card, while on duty, the same cannot be viewed with any degree of leniency. Such an act was prohibited, and was rightly held to be a misconduct liable for punishment. Merely because the spy pen camera was not used by the Member of the Force cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance.”

Advocate Chandreyi Alam Gupta represented the appellant while Advocate Ujjal Ray represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner, a Constable in the Force, was involved in a quarrel with a senior Officer wherein he was proceeded against but not visited with any penalty. An allegation was leveled against the petitioner that he was on duty with spy pen camera. The same led to initiation of a proceeding wherein the allegation was found to be substantiated. The writ petitioner took a plea before the authorities that neither the spy pen camera was used nor any information was gathered. The authorities considered the plea of the petitioner and found the charges to be proved. The same was put to challenge before the Writ Court wherein the Single Judge upheld the findings in the enquiry but reduced the punishment.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, reiterated that punishment is required to be awarded with reference to the gravity of the charges and commensurate to the same. On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Single Judge recorded findings that the acts alleged constituted misconduct and were driven by ill motive.

“Consideration of a fact that earlier the petitioner was earlier involved in an episode with his senior officer and the disciplinary proceeding therein resulted in his exoneration, by the Hon’ble Single Judge, for recording that misconduct appears to stem from a personal dispute between the petitioner and the family of another Force member; and that the same was due to a mistaken belief that the superior officer was taking the side of the petitioner’s adversary from the earlier episode, in our opinion, is not founded on any material to make out a tangible apprehension”, it added.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that the petitioner was called for counselling by the Company Commander. He reached the office of the Commander in uniform, and during the counseling/conversation the authorities present noticed the spy pen camera in the left pocket of the petitioner’s uniform shirt. “These facts are to be viewed keeping in background a fact that the petitioner was a member of a Central Para-military force, obliged and duty bound to maintain the highest standards of discipline, devotion and integrity in discharge of his duties. The installations being guarded by the Force (CISF) of which the petitioner was a Member are normally installations of national importance owned by the Central Government and certain other industrial undertakings or industrial establishments of national importance in private sector. The requirement of high degree of discipline, integrity and dedication to the duties from Members of a Force like the CISF has been repeatedly stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India”, it stated.

The Bench was of the view that the fact that the petitioner was earlier proceeded against and exonerated could not lay the foundation for the petitioner to contend that there was an apprehension of bias against him by the superior officers. Based on such apprehension, the petitioner could not justify carrying a spy pen camera in his uniform shirt pocket within the guarded installation, 15 minutes before he was to begin his duty on a post within the installation. The Bench further noted that he had been specifically called by a superior officer for counselling before he proceeded to his post, where the spy pen camera was detected.

Rejecting the contention regarding the petitioner’s claim regarding an apprehension of bias, the Bench held that there was no occasion for the Single Judge to interfere with the quantum of punishment. Thus, setting aside the order in so far as it interfered with the quantum of punishment, the Bench allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: Union of India & Others v. Sanjit Sahu (Case No.:M.A.T. 1076 of 2025)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Chandreyi Alam Gupta, Jasojeet Mukherjee

Respondent: Advocate Ujjal Ray

Click here to read/download Order