##PAGE1##

W.P.No.24969 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

W.P.No.24969 of 2018

Monika, Ex-L/CT/GD

No.120801352

D/o.Sh.Bijender Singh

Sanwar Village Post Office

Bound Kalan Police Station

Tehsil-Ch.Dadri

Bhiwani District

Haryana- 127 042. ...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Union of India

Ministry of Home Affairs

Rep.by Secretary to Government

New Delhi.

2.The Director General

Central Industrial Security Force

CGO Complex

Lodhi Road

New Delhi 110 003.

3.The Inspector General

Central Industrial Security Force

South Sector Hqrs, Chennai

Near War Memorial

Chennai 600 009.

4.The Deputy Inspector General

Central Industrial Security Force

DOS Hqrs, Bangalore 560 094.

1/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/02/2026 03:54:42 pm )

W.P.No.24969 of 2018

5.The Senior Commandant

Central Industrial Security Force Unit,

VSSC, Thumba, Kerala. ...Respondents

Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

to issue a Writ of Certiorari-fied Mandamus, to call for the records relating to

the order passed by the third respondent dated 04.05.2018 in his order

No.V-15016/CISF/SS/L&R/Rev/Monika/13/2018-3716 confirming the order

passed by the 4^th respondent dated 19.12.2017 in his order

No.V-11014/DOS/L&R/App/Monika/SAC(A)/2017/1495 and quash the same

and to direct the respondents to take the petitioner into the strength of CISF as

Constable and to pay all benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sivakumar

For Respondents : Mr.V.Ashok Kumar

Central Government

Senior Panel Counsel

ORDER

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order passed by the fifth

respondent, by which the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of

misconduct. The petitioner also challenges the orders passed by the third and

fourth respondents, whereby, in exercise of their appellate and revisional

powers, the order of punishment passed by the fifth respondent has been

confirmed.

2. The petitioner, while serving as a Constable in CISF, was issued a

charge memo. The charge memo contained two charges as per the statement of

2/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/02/2026 03:54:42 pm )

W.P.No.24969 of 2018

imputations. The allegation is that, while the petitioner was deployed at Wicket

Gate X-BIS in the ‘G’ shift and CISF No.120718140 CT/GD Dilip Kumar was

deployed at Wicket Gate TS, at approximately 9.49 a.m., the petitioner slapped

Dilip Kumar. Being a member of a disciplined force, the action of the petitioner

was found to be an act of indiscipline. The further allegation is that, on the very

same date and time, the petitioner slapped Dilip Kumar three times at different

places. The petitioner was issued a notice to show cause as to why a

departmental enquiry should not be conducted.

3. The petitioner submitted an explanation denying the charges and

further stated that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the said

Dilip Kumar. The petitioner had filed a complaint against Dilip Kumar for

passing abusive comments. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not

found satisfactory, and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer,

after recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses as well as that of the

petitioner, recorded a finding that the charges against the petitioner were proved.

4. The petitioner submitted a further explanation to the second show

cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the fifth respondent, after

3/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/02/2026 03:54:42 pm )

W.P.No.24969 of 2018

considering the charges, the enquiry report, and the further explanation

submitted by the petitioner, passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner

from service. The same was affirmed by the Appellate as well as the Revisional

Authority.

5. Mr.K.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that,

except for the self-serving statement of the complainant (PW2), there is no

substantial evidence to substantiate the allegations aga