Calcutta HC reinstates CISF constable dismissed over negligence

The Calcutta High Court clarified that it is crucial for such a body to exercise caution when making such remarks or comments


In 2013, a CISF constable was stationed at the tunnel gate of ISSCO plant in Burnpur. During his duty hours, a group of troublemakers entered the ISSCO premises. These individuals were armed with hexa blades and were attempting to steal copper wire. Despite their attempts, they were apprehended.

However, the petitioner was subsequently suspended and later dismissed from service. This action was taken due to the petitioner’s failure to thoroughly inspect the vehicles entering the facility, resulting in the apprehending vehicle gaining access without proper inspection or a gate pass.

The honourable high court of Calcutta set aside the dismissal order of the petitioner and directed for him to be reinstated in service.

In a decision by Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, a single-bench, the dismissal order that characterised the petitioner as a ‘conniver’ with questionable integrity has been overturned. The court stated that there was no compelling evidence to establish that the petitioner permitted the vehicle to pass through the tunnel gate without conducting adequate inspection.

Approving a petition, the Calcutta high court ordered that a disciplinary body functions as a quasi-judicial entity. Therefore, its observations and conclusions should be grounded in credible evidence.

Furthermore, the court clarified that such baseless comments can tarnish an individual’s reputation permanently and hence, it is crucial for such a body to exercise caution when making such remarks or comments.

Even though the armed intruders were eventually captured within the premises, the petitioner faced suspension and subsequent dismissal following a disciplinary process. This was a result of shortcomings in adequately inspecting incoming vehicles at the facility, which allowed the apprehended vehicle to enter without proper scrutiny or a gate pass.

Respondents argued that the petitioner overlooked the ‘strict discipline which is expected from a disciplined force.’ However, the petitioner argued that he neither permitted any vehicle to enter the premises without proper inspection nor was there any theft incident.

Comment on the Article

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

12 + one =