INTRODUCTION
The judgment of the Delhi High Court in Vinesh Kumar Singh Vs Director General CISF ordered principles of proportionality and equality in disciplinary actions in the Central Armed Police Forces. CISF constables were removed from service after a security issue at the High Commission of India in Dhaka. The Court ordered equal treatment across similar persons and found the punishment imposed on the petitioners disproportionate compared to the lesser penalty given to an ITBP officer in the same incident.
BACKGROUND
The case originated when two CISF constables, Vikesh Kumar Singh and Arunchalam P., deployed at the High Commission of India in Dhaka, were involved in an incident where a woman gained unauthorized access to the Chancery premises during Republic Day celebrations on January 26, 2018. the High Commission did not recommend any disciplinary action after their internal inquiry. The CISF initiated a disciplinary inquiry under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001which led to their removal from service on October 15 2018. The punishments were different for these constables and ITBP officer Mahesh Makhwana, who received only a “severe reprimand,” which formed the legal challenge’s crux.
KEY ISSUES RAISED
The case brought questions regarding the disparity in punishments between CISF and ITBP persons who were involved in the same incident. the authority of CISF to initiate independent disciplinary action without recommendations from the borrowing authority and the importance of judicial review in examining disciplinary actions of CAPFs. These issues show the concerns of equality and proportionality in disciplinary proceedings across different forces under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE COURT
They analyzed the violation of equality principles in disciplinary actions. from the Supreme Court judgment in Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) the Court cleared that disciplinary authorities cannot impose disproportionate punishment when complimentary officers receive lesser penalties. The Court rejected arguments about different rules governing ITBP and CISF and mentioned that both forces operate under the Ministry of Home Affairs and should maintain administrative parity.
IMPLICATIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE
The judgment sets a crucial precedent in service jurisprudence by establishing clear guidelines for maintaining equality and proportionality in disciplinary actions across CAPFs. It reinforces the principle that forces under the same administrative framework must receive similar treatment for comparable offenses, ensuring fairness and consistency in disciplinary proceedings.
DIRECTIVES OF THE COURT
The Court ordered the reinstatement of the petitioners without back wages, striking a balance between maintaining discipline and ensuring fairness. This directive reflected the Court’s consideration of the gravity of the security lapse while acknowledging the disproportionate nature of the original punishment.
CONCLUSION
The Delhi High Court’s judgment in this case represents a significant milestone in service jurisprudence, particularly in addressing disciplinary actions within CAPFs. By emphasizing the need for proportionality and equality in punishment, the Court has established important principles for future disciplinary proceedings. The decision serves as a reminder that while maintaining discipline is crucial, it must be balanced with principles of fairness and equality, especially in organizations operating under the same administrative framework.
This judgment stands as a testament to the judiciary’s role in ensuring fair treatment of personnel across different forces while maintaining the essential discipline required in security organizations.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
WRITTEN BY HRIDYA S KUMAR
