The Delhi High Court has rejected the petition of a former Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) officer, who was discharged from service after being found under the influence of liquor during duty, noting that his behaviour reflects “gross indiscipline”.
A Bench of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla declined to interfere with the order passed by the CISF directing the removal of Pradeep Kumar from service with immediate effect.
Mr. Kumar, former assistant sub-inspector who was part of the CISF unit at the Shirdi airport, was deputed on duty on October 3, 2018 from 9 p.m. till 6 a.m. with a 9 mm pistol and 30 rounds of ammunition on the explosion works supervision duty post.
As per the charges, Mr. Kumar was found under the influence of liquor at about 9 p.m. during his duty hours, and he was not in a position to perform his duty in a proper manner.
Mr. Kumar denied the charges, but contended that barring the finding that he had consumed liquor, there was no allegation of him having created any ruckus, having misbehaved or having resisted the authority in such a state.
Mr. Kumar said the penalty of removal from service was highly disproportionate to his action. Mr. Kumar said he had always maintained good character and had no adverse remarks against him. He said the above infraction was the only instance of the dereliction of duty by him.
The High Court noted that on the day of the incident, Mr. Kumar had been issued a 9 mm pistol and 30 rounds of ammunition and was posted at the duty post.
“The above charge is extremely grave. The same clearly reflects gross indiscipline on part of the petitioner [Mr. Kumar],” it said.
“The petitioner is a member of a disciplined force and was posted at a sensitive post in night duty with arms and ammunition. The mere fact that under influence of liquor, he did not actually misuse the firearm or misbehaved, cannot absolve the petitioner of his misconduct,” it added.
While rejecting his plea against the dismissal order, the court said the charge against Mr. Kumar was of a grave nature and “we do not find the penalty imposed on the petitioner to be disproportionate”.
