Mere Incarceration In Connection With Murder Case No Ground For Removal: Allahabad High Court Upholds Order Quashing CISF Constable’s Removal

The High Court was considering a special appeal filed by the Union of India challenging the judgment of the Single Judge.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Bharti and Justice Rajan Roy held, “Learned Single Judge therefore, cannot be faulted for having quashed the removal order, as, the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings, in the facts and circumstances of this case, for imposing punishment of removal was without any factual and legal basis. Merely because a person has been incarcerated in connection with an offence of murder or conspiracy to murder, cannot be a ground for removal though it may a ground for suspending him i.e. if the trial is pending.”

Advocate Anand Dwivedi represented the Appellant while Advocate Durgesh Mishra represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The respondent/ petitioner was working as Head Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) since October 4,2009. His engagement in the CISF was after he retired from the Indian Army. The respondent/petitioner was an accused in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., and he was incarcerated for over 4 months. He was enlarged on bail in 2019. He requested the appellant to allow him to join duties consequent to his enlargement on bail, but he was placed under suspension under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 33 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001.

The respondent/petitioner remained under suspension, and he was served with a chargesheet. Ultimately, he was removed from service. The writ challenging this removal order came to be allowed. It was in such circumstances that the matter reached the Division Bench.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the charge, the Bench noted that the respondent/petitioner remained incarcerated from May 1, 2019, to September 20, 2019, in connection with the criminal case, till he was enlarged on bail. The charge alleged was of gross misconduct on the part of the respondent/petitioner on account of his involvement in the criminal case. It was also noticed that at the time of issuance of the chargesheet in disciplinary proceedings, the respondent/ petitioner was not convicted.

The Bench referred to section 8 which provides that subject to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and to such rule as the Central Government may make under this Act, any supervisory officer may dismiss, remove, order for compulsory retirement, or reduce in rank any enrolled member of the Force whom he thinks remiss or negligence in discharge of his duty, or unfit for the same.

The Bench noted that there was no finding by the trial court that the respondent had committed an offence for which he had been charged. There was no such finding. As per the Bench, all these were merely presumptions which were drawn and were without any factual and legal basis. “The appropriate course should have been to place the respondent/ petitioner under suspension under Rule 33 (1) (b) of CISF Rules, 2001 which was not done, instead the respondent/petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 33 (2) of the Rules, 2001”, it added.

The Bench found no basis for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and issuance of a chargesheet to the respondent/petitioner merely because of his incarceration in respect of a criminal case.

Allowing the appeal in part, the Bench ordered. “We therefore, while sustaining the judgement of the writ court to quash the order of removal from service dated 17.12.2019 as also the appellate and revisional orders in this regard, modify the remaining portion of the judgement by which dues for the period of respondent’s suspension and post retiral dues have been ordered to be paid to him, in terms as already mentioned earlier.”

Cause Title: Union Of India v. Vijay Kumar Pandey (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO-74212-DB)

Click here to read/download Order