Back
A Night of Liquor and Assault Ends a Constable's Career—And Sets a Key Precedent
In a ruling that clarifies procedural safeguards in paramilitary force enquiries, the has dismissed an filed by a former constable challenging his 1997 dismissal from service. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal upheld the 's decision, holding that neither the absence of a nor the lack of a automatically vitiates .
Misconduct at the Family Quarters and Barracks
Rajinder Singh, then a Constable with the , landed in serious trouble on the night of . Along with another constable, he visited the family quarters of SI/GD Jagdish Singh inside the Group Centre Campus at Bhuvneshwar after consuming liquor. He allegedly misbehaved with the officer. The very next day he was found absent from night duty and discovered consuming liquor inside the living barracks, in violation of camp standing orders. When senior officers arrived to search for him, the appellant and his colleague turned violent and assaulted them.
Suspension followed immediately on , and a was ordered the next day. The —Assistant Commandant Shri Bhagwant Singh—completed the proceedings and submitted his report. On the Commandant imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. Successive appeals and a revision petition were rejected, prompting the writ petition that was dismissed in 2014. The present , restored after being dismissed for non-prosecution, reached final hearing in 2026.
Appellant's Three-Pronged Attack on the Enquiry
The appellant, through counsel , confined his challenge to three limited grounds. First, he argued that the enquiry was vitiated because no was appointed, allowing the to step into the role of . Second, he contended that a should have been conducted under , since a co-accused constable from the same incident received only a warning. Third, he claimed he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
Senior counsel , appearing for the Union, countered that the appellant had in fact cross-examined all five prosecution witnesses. He maintained that the allegations against the two constables were distinct—the colleague was not charged with unauthorised absence—and therefore no was required. Reliance was placed on a recent decision of the same High Court to argue that non-appointment of a does not, by itself, cause prejudice.
Court Clarifies When an Crosses the Line
Delving into the ’s judgment in Union of India vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018), the Division Bench extracted five guiding principles. The court stressed that an may legitimately ask questions to elicit truth, but must not conduct , put , or cross-examine defence witnesses in a manner that suggests he has assumed the role of .
After a detailed perusal of the enquiry record, the Bench found that the appellant had indeed been granted full opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 O.S. George, PW-2 Jagdish Singh and others. There was no material to show that the had led the prosecution case himself. Consequently, the first and third grounds failed.
Why Rule 27(d) Is Directory, Not Mandatory
On the question of , the court turned to the text of Rule 27(d). The provision empowers—but does not obligate—the disciplinary authority to direct common proceedings where two or more members are involved in a single case. Because the rule “does not confer a upon the appellant,” failure to hold a cannot, standing alone, render the proceedings void.
The Bench further noted that the colleague’s alleged role was limited to accompanying the appellant to the officer’s quarters; he faced no charge of absence from duty. The nature and gravity of the allegations against Rajinder Singh were therefore “distinct and significantly more serious.” The ratio of proportionality advanced by the appellant was accordingly rejected.
“We have carefully examined the judgment rendered by the learned and find no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.”
Practical Takeaways for Future Disciplinary Actions
The judgment reinforces two important propositions. First, in departmental enquiries must be shown to have caused ; technical defaults alone are insufficient. Second, directory rules in service regulations, such as Rule 27(d), do not create enforceable rights for . For serving personnel in the and similar forces, the message is clear: misconduct involving assault on superiors and violation of camp discipline will invite stringent punishment, and challenges based purely on procedural mechanics are unlikely to succeed.
The order, pronounced on , brings finality to a nearly three-decade-old dispute and provides valuable guidance for disciplinary authorities navigating joint proceedings and the delicate balance between and .
