Disgraceful Conduct Evident In Viral Video: Bombay High Court Upholds RPF Constable’s Removal For Outraging Modesty Despite Absence Of Complaint
The Bench noted that the removal from service was proportionate, as members in disciplined forces are held to higher standards of conduct.
The Bombay High Court has held that the absence of a formal complaint does not absolve a a member of disciplined force of misconduct where disgraceful conduct is clearly evident from electronic evidence such as viral videos and CCTV footage. Upholding disciplinary action against a Constable of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) for outraging modesty of a woman, the Court emphasised that independently verifiable material is sufficient to sustain departmental proceedings.
The Court held that disciplinary authorities are empowered to act “on receipt of complaint or otherwise”, and therefore, the non-lodging of a complaint by the affected individual does not preclude action where the conduct is demonstrably discreditable. It further noted that members of disciplined forces are held to higher standards of conduct, and penalties imposed upon proof of misconduct will not be lightly interfered with in judicial review.
Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande while dismissing a writ petition challenging the petitioner’s removal from service, observed, “We ourselves have viewed the video clipping and from the said video, the intention of the Petitioner is evidently clear, being to outrage the modesty of the woman and we do not find that the action of the Railways holding him guilty of the charges and imposing major penalty upon him after following the procedure prescribed in law and as per the Rules, suffer from any arbitrariness or excessiveness. We find the conduct of the Petitioner to be disgraceful and definitely immoral. He is the member of Protection Force, but he himself became the perpetrator of a shameful act”.
Advocate Samir A. Vaidya appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Abhijeet Joshi appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, an RPF constable, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings following circulation of a viral video and CCTV footage depicting an incident at Kalyan Railway Station. The footage showed the petitioner engaging in inappropriate conduct with a woman seated beside him on a platform, following which he was slapped by a bystander. No complaint was lodged by the woman or any member of the public.
A charge-sheet was issued and a departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. The Inquiry Officer, relying on the video evidence and witness testimony, found the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service, which was affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities.
Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that the initiation of proceedings was unjustified in the absence of any complaint and that the act was unintentional. It was also argued that the punishment was disproportionate, however the respondents, maintained that the conduct, being discreditable and captured on video, justified strict action under the applicable service rules.
Rejecting the challenge, the Court held that the video clip and CCTV footage constituted cogent material to initiate and sustain disciplinary proceedings.
“It cannot be ignored that Railway platform is a transitory place where people come and go and the lady who faced ignominy at the hands of the Petitioner immediately left the platform and did not deem it appropriate to lodge a complaint and take the issue ahead. However, we appreciate the railway administration of taking cognizance of such serious reprehensible and disparaging act committed by the Petitioner which was clearly recorded in the CCTV footage as well as the video, which was made viral”, it observed.
On the issue of proportionality, the Court reiterated that members of disciplined forces are expected to maintain strict standards of conduct both on and off duty. It held that once misconduct is proved and due process is followed, there is limited scope for judicial interference with the quantum of punishment.
“…we have noted that the Petitioner belong to Railway Protection Force which is a Disciplined Force constituted for a particular purpose and when the act of misconduct is proved before the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by two superior Authorities, considering the seriousness of the charge of misconduct, we see no reason for showing any leniency”, the Bench noted.
“…applying our mind to the facts before us and specifically by viewing the video clip which has clearly lead us to believe that the conduct of the Petitioner was truly deplorable and despite being in uniform and on the property of the Railway, he had dared to indulge into such an act and therefore we find complete justification in the Railway, in initiating an inquiry against him, finding him guilty and imposing a punishment of removal from service, which is lesser penalty than dismissal from service”, the Bench, thus, held.
Cause Title: Rajesh Sahadeo Jangid v. Union of India & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:16291-DB]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Samir A. Vaidya, Advocate.
Respondents: Abhijeet Joshi i/b Induprakash Tripathi, Advocate.
Click here to read/download the Judgment