Vinesh Kumar Singh Vs. DG CISF: Delhi HC Ensures Parity in Punishments Across Forces Under the Same Administrative Structure

Introduction:

In the case of Vinesh Kumar Singh v. Director General CISF, the Delhi High Court delivered a judgment highlighting the principles of proportionality and equality in disciplinary actions within Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). The petitioners, CISF constables, faced removal from service following a security lapse at the High Commission of India (HCI) in Dhaka. The Court, emphasizing parity in treatment across similarly situated personnel, found the punishment imposed on the petitioners to be disproportionate when compared to the lesser penalty given to an ITBP officer involved in the same incident.

The judgment is a landmark in addressing the application of equality in disciplinary proceedings across different forces under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). By ordering the reinstatement of the petitioners without back wages, the Court underscored the need for fairness while ensuring discipline within CAPFs, setting a significant precedent for service jurisprudence.

Background:

The petitioners, Vikesh Kumar Singh and Arunchalam P., were constables in the CISF, deployed to the High Commission of India in Dhaka. On January 26, 2018, during Republic Day celebrations, a woman gained unauthorized access to the Chancery premises. The petitioners were accused of failing to report the incident to their superiors.

After an internal inquiry by the High Commission, the petitioners were repatriated to India. However, the High Commission did not recommend any disciplinary action. Despite this, the CISF initiated a disciplinary inquiry under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001, charging the petitioners with negligence. The inquiry found them guilty, leading to their removal from service on October 15, 2018.

In contrast, ITBP officer Mahesh Makhwana, who played a central role in the incident, received a minor penalty of "severe reprimand." The petitioners filed a writ petition, arguing that the disparity in punishments constituted discrimination and violated the principles of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Questions of Law:

1. Does the imposition of harsher punishment on CISF personnel compared to ITBP personnel involved in the same incident violate the principles of equality and proportionality?
2. Can the CISF initiate independent disciplinary action without recommendations from the borrowing authority (HCI)?
3. What is the extent of judicial review in examining disciplinary actions within CAPFs?

Findings and Rationale:

1. Disproportionate Punishment and the Doctrine of Equality: The Court held that the disparity in punishments imposed on the CISF constables and the ITBP officer violated the principles of equality and proportionality. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013), the Court observed that a disciplinary authority cannot impose disproportionate punishment, especially when co-delinquents involved in the same incident receive lesser penalties.“Lesser offences cannot attract more severe penalties than those imposed for greater offences. Such disparity undermines the doctrine of equality and justice,” the Court remarked.
2. Administrative Parity Across CAPFs: Rejecting the argument that ITBP and CISF personnel follow different rules, the Court emphasized that both forces operate under the Ministry of Home Affairs and are governed by similar regulations. It clarified that equality in treatment must extend to personnel across CAPFs when dealing with comparable offences.“Forces under the same administrative framework must receive similar treatment to ensure parity and fairness,” the Court noted.
3. Independent Disciplinary Action by CISF: The Court acknowledged CISF’s authority to conduct its own inquiry but questioned the propriety of imposing penalties when the borrowing authority (HCI) had not recommended any disciplinary action. While the inquiry established negligence on the part of the petitioners, the punishment of removal from service was deemed excessive given the circumstances.
4. Balancing Discipline and Fairness: The Court recognized the gravity of the petitioners’ role in ensuring security but noted that their actions constituted a lapse in judgment rather than deliberate negligence. It observed that their removal from service for a first-time offence, especially when their co-delinquent received a minor penalty, was unduly harsh.“The punishment imposed should reflect the gravity of the misconduct while ensuring fairness and proportionality,” the Court reasoned.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Vinesh Kumar Singh v. Director General CISF underscores the importance of proportionality and equality in disciplinary actions within CAPFs. By setting aside the removal of the petitioners and ordering their reinstatement, the Court affirmed the principle that punishments for comparable offences must be consistent across forces operating under the same administrative framework.This decision serves as a significant precedent in service jurisprudence, ensuring that disciplinary actions balance accountability with fairness, especially in sensitive roles like those within CAPFs.

Disclaimer:

This post is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended to defame, discredit, or tarnish the reputation of any individual, entity, or organization. The opinions expressed are based on publicly available judicial decisions and are aimed at fostering a better understanding of legal principles. For specific legal advice, readers are encouraged to consult a professional.