* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 26.11.2024 Pronounced on: 10.12.2024 + W.P.(C) 13734/2019 VIKESH KUMAR SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Adv.

Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SPC with Mr. Sunil Jha, Mrs. K.K. Kiran Pathak and Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. for R-1 to R-5.

Mr. G.S. Rathore, A.C., CISF.

+ W.P.(C) 13907/2019 ARUNCHALAM. P .....Petitioner Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Adv.

Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Uniyal, Mr.

Dhawal Uniyal, Advs. for UOI with Mr. G. S. Rathore, A.C.

and Mr. Prahlad, SI, CISF.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

J U D G M E N T

SHALINDER KAUR, J.

1. The petitioners have moved the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raising a common issue, that is whether the punishment of removal from service awarded to them by the Disciplinary Authorities vide separate Orders dated 15.10.2018, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13734/2019 & 13907/2019 Page 1 of 12 which have been upheld by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities on 11.02.2019 and July/August, 2019 respectively, pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings held against them, is violative of the principles of equality, proportionality and natural justice, when the other member of the Central Armed Police Force having a similar/bigger role in the same incident, was let off with a minor penalty. As the issue in both the petitions is common, mainly, the facts of petition bearing no. W.P.(C) 13734/2019 titled “Vikesh Kumar Singh vs. Director General Central Industrial Security Force and Ors.” are being taken up for the sake of brevity.

2. We may begin by noting the common factual position in both the petitions, which is that the petitioners were enrolled as Constables (General Duty) in the Central Industrial Security Force (“CISF”). They were posted on deputation, under the Ministry of External Affairs, in its High Commission of India (HCI) at Dhaka. They, along with two other Indo-Tibetan Border Police (“ITBP”) Force members, namely, Head Constable (HC) (GD) Mahesh Makhwana and HC (GD) Shyam Sunder were deployed at the HCI. However, due to the incident in question, they were prematurely repatriated to India, pursuant to an inquiry held against them on 06.08.2018 and

13.08.2018, in relation to an incident dated 26.01.2018.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 26.01.2018, they did not report the entry of an unauthorised lady at the Chancery, when the officials of High Commission were away hosting the Republic Day parade. The said lady, along with ITBP Force member HC (GD) Mahesh Makhwana had entered the Chancery after the petitioner, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13734/2019 & 13907/2019 Page 2 of 12 Vikesh Kumar Singh had already entered the cabin gate, yet the petitioner failed to report the unauthorised entry of the said lady to the higher officers.

4. Thereupon, the HCI issued a Show Cause Notice dated 13.02.2018 to the petitioners, individually. Dissatisfied with the reply sent by the petitioners to the said notice, the petitioners were prematurely repatriated from the High Commission duty. However, the office of the High Commission, in this regard made no recommendation to the CISF, being the lending department, to take any action in respect of the alleged incident that took place on 26.01.2018. Further, no inquiry report was sent to the CISF, recommending that any further action in respect of the alleged incident be taken against the petitioners.

5. However, the respondents decided to initiate a disciplinary inquiry against both the petitioners and issued a Memorandum of Charge on 31.03.2018 and also an imputation of Charge under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 by proposing a major penalty. The following Article of Charge was framed against the petitioner Vikesh Kuma