Const. Amar Singh v. Union of India
Background
A constable with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) was charged with leaving his camp without permission and trespassing into a private residence about 12 km away, allegedly conducting himself in a manner unbecoming of a member of the armed forces. A departmental inquiry found both charges proved, and his pay was reduced for a period (later shortened on appeal). He challenged the penalty before the Delhi High Court, which found the first charge (leaving without permission) not proved, he did have a valid pass to visit a hospital, but upheld the second charge, since he was in fact found at a residential colony instead, where he had been confined by local civilians until his superior officer intervened.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court dismissed the constable's appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment. It agreed that although the appellant had permission to leave camp for a hospital visit, he instead went to a residential colony 12 km away for an unrelated personal matter, got into some kind of confrontation serious enough that civilians detained him until his superior assured them departmental action would follow: conduct the Court found sufficient to sustain a finding of indiscipline affecting the Force's reputation, even though the specific allegation of trespass was not proved. Since there was no complaint of any breach of natural justice in the inquiry process, the Court declined to interfere with the reduced penalty under its discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Lesson Learnt
Courts give very limited scope for challenging disciplinary findings against members of a uniformed force where the inquiry process itself was fair, even where one specific charge fails, a lesser but still proven act of misconduct can be enough to sustain a penalty.