A departmental proceeding cannot be initiated against a member of the force for a perceived criminal act committed beyond the scope of his duty and outside the territorial control of the force.

SANJIB BANERJEE, J. : –

A head constable of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) is in appeal from his failed writ petition challenging the punishment meted out to him in disciplinary proceedings.

2. Though somewhat unnecessary in the context of the matters that ought to be weighed in judicial review, it may be useful to see how the charges on four counts came to be levelled against the appellant. According to the enquiry report that has been relied upon by the disciplinary authority in ultimately subjecting the appellant to compulsory retirement from service, the appellant is said to have outraged the modesty of the wife of another constable in the force at the rented residence of such other constable at a time when the appellant was required to report for a regimental function. The enquiry officer also held that the appellant had remained absent for a period beginning a day after the alleged incident; found him guilty of insubordination; and, of staying away from a regimental function without proper excuse.

3. By a memorandum of April 15/16, 2005 the appellant was informed that an enquiry was proposed to be conducted in relation to the conduct of the appellant under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001. The articles of charge and the statements of imputation of misconduct in support of the articles were furnished along with the memorandum. The four charges brought against the appellant read as follows:

“ARTICLE – I

On 30-03-05 at about 1600 hrs No. 822310853 HC(GD) G D Paul of CISF Unit NSCBI Airport Kolkata went to the residence (rented accommodation at A-40, Indira Nagar, Kolkata – 81) of No. 944521768 Constable S R Biswas who was on ‘B’ shift duty (from 1300 hrs to 2100 hrs) and outraged the modesty of Smt Anjana Biswas, wife of the said Constable, who was alone at her residence. The act committed by No. 82230853 HC/GD G.D. Paul is gross misconduct. Hence, the charge.

“ARTICLE – II

No. 822310853 HC(GD) G D Paul of CISF Unit NSCBI Airport Kolkata was detailed for Quarter Guard duty from 0600 hrs of 31.03.05 to 0600 hrs of 01.04.05. He did not report for duty and remained absent without information to the competent authority. It is an act of indiscipline. Hence, the charge.

“ARTICLE – III

On 31.03.05 at about 1410 hrs No. 822310853 HC (GD) G D Paul of CISF Unit NSCBI Airport Kolkata had reported at Unit Control room to inform that he was on sick rest. He was directed by the control room In Charge SI/Exe Dabashish Roy to report to Shri N.D. Sharma DC, ‘HQ’ Coy who was present in the SHA/DTB of NSCBI Airport Kolkata. He however did not follow the order and replied that he would not meet anybody. Disobedience of orders issued lawfully by senior is an act of indiscipline. Hence, the charge.

“ARTICLE – IV

On 30-03-05 at about 1600 hrs was scheduled for Sainik Sammelan of Commandant NSCBI Airport Kolkata, at CISF Sarat Camp, NSCBIA Kolkata No. 822310853 HC (GD) G D Paul who had performed ‘A’ Shift Duty (0500 hrs to 1300 hrs) on the same day was required to attend Sainik Sammelan but he did not attend the same without any cogent reason. Remaining absent from regimental functions is an act of indiscipline. Hence, the Charge.”

4. There is no grievance that the appellant was not afforded an opportunity to present his case or defend himself before the enquiry. The enquiry officer proceeded to conclude that the appellant was guilty as charged on all four counts. The appellant was allowed a further representation which he submitted on November 8, 2005 to the disciplinary authority and such authority made an order on December 1, 2005. The disciplinary authority invoked Rule 32 read with Rule 34(iii) of the CISF Rules, 2001 to award the appellant the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect. The suspension of the appellant with effect from April 5, 2005 was also confirmed and it was provided that for the period that the appellant remained suspended he would not be entitled to any more than the sub