Back
Viral Video Seals Fate of RPF Constable: Bombay HC Backs Removal Despite No Victim Complaint
In a stark reminder of the unyielding standards for India's disciplined forces, the has dismissed a writ petition by former Constable Rajesh Sahadeo Jangid, upholding his removal from service for alleged misconduct on a crowded platform. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande scrutinized viral social media footage and CCTV evidence, ruling that such material alone justifies disciplinary action—even without a formal complaint from the woman involved.
From Platform Bench to Disciplinary Dock
The saga unfolded on , at Kalyan Railway Station's Platform No. 4. Off-duty after his shift, Jangid, a 35-year-old constable from Rajasthan, sat on a bench feeling unwell amid personal family troubles. Seated next to a woman on her phone, he claimed drowsiness led to an inadvertent arm stretch that touched her. Chaos ensued: a nearby man slapped him, a crowd gathered, and the woman vanished. No police report or departmental complaint followed from her or anyone else.
But a passenger-recorded video exploded online, showing the uniformed constable's hand movements toward the woman, followed by the slap between . CCTV from adjacent Platform No. 5 corroborated it. Inspector Ajit Mane identified Jangid, prompting a swift charge-sheet on , for suspension and inquiry into "indecent behaviour" tarnishing the force's image.
Inquiry from found him guilty under —specifically .4 on . A show-cause notice proposed dismissal; Jangid replied it was a sleep-induced mistake sans intent. Assistant Security Commissioner removed him on , a penalty upheld on appeal ( ) and revision ( ).
Jangid challenged this in Writ Petition No. 7616 of 2021, admitted , arguing procedural flaws and disproportionate punishment.
Petitioner's Plea: Mistake, Not Malice
Counsel hammered home the absence of any victim's complaint, insisting the inquiry lacked foundation. Jangid portrayed the touch as unintentional—tiredness and family stress clouded his mind in a "wage of sleep." He stressed no prior alcoholism complaints marred his record, only this isolated lapse. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386 and Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463, Vaidya invoked the : removal was "grossly disproportionate" for a minor, non-criminal act.
Railways' Firm Stance: Uniform Demands Discipline
Respondent counsel defended the RPF's code under 1987 Rules, binding members on and off duty. mandates impeccable behavior; breaches like ( .4) invite major penalties under , including removal for acts harming the force's reputation. The viral video and CCTV sufficed as "complaint or otherwise" per .3—no victim statement needed when evidence screams misconduct on railway property.
Joshi leaned on Apex Court rulings: State of Uttarakhand v. Prem Ram (2020) 12 SCC 658 upheld dismissal of a drunken constable misbehaving publicly, stressing disciplined forces' zero tolerance. In , midnight intrusion into a women's barrack warranted removal, as indiscipline erodes trust.
Decoding the Rules: No Complaint, No Escape
The bench dissected the RPF framework under the 1957 Act, tasked with safeguarding railways. Enrolled members like Jangid must protect passengers—yet he allegedly outraged a woman's modesty on a platform. Disciplinary authorities can probe via inquiry officer ( ) on viral evidence alone; procedures were textbook, with Jangid getting documents, hearing chances, and chances to defend (he examined none).
Judges viewed the footage themselves:
"the manner in which he moved his hand, clearly reveal to us his intention... taking advantage that she had her back towards him, he indulged himself into a despicable act."
No drowsiness evident; apology post-slap underscored guilt awareness. Non-complaint by the transient victim? Irrelevant—platforms teem with passersby; force image trumps silence.
Precedents reinforced: disciplined forces brook no lapses compromising security or repute.
Key Observations
"No member of the Force shall act in any manneror conduct himself in such a manner which is reasonably likely to bring discredit to the reputation of the Force."( .4, RPF Rules 1987, as invoked by Court)
"The Disciplinary Authority deemed it appropriate to initiate an inquiry... since it was of the view that the alleged act which was widely publicised brought discredit to the reputation of the Force and we do not find that merely because the lady did not make a complaint, the inquiry initiated is without jurisdiction."(Para 12)
"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... suffer from any arbitrariness or excessiveness."(Para 18)
"He is the member of Protection Force, but he himself became the perpetrator of a shameful act."(Para 18)
Verdict: No Leniency for Force's Guardians
Writ dismissed ( ). Removal stands—lesser than dismissal, proportionate for intentional disgrace in uniform. Implications ripple: social media/CCTV now potent inquiry triggers for armed forces, sidelining victim reticence. As news reports echo (e.g., LiveLaw), this fortifies RPF's vigil, but spotlights digital scrutiny's double edge for public servants.
