Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside CISF Constable’s Removal After Finding Enquiry Vitiated by Contradictory Evidence and Disproportionate Punishment
Case Name: Ravinder Kumar Rana v. Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force and Another
Date of Judgment: 24 December 2025
Citation: CWP-13410-2000
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a CISF constable and quashed the orders of removal from service and rejection of appeal, holding that the departmental enquiry was vitiated by non-consideration of material contradictions in evidence, absence of medical corroboration for the alleged assault, and non-application of mind by the enquiry officer. The Court further held that reliance on past minor disciplinary record to establish habitual misconduct was impermissible when the present charges were not proved, and that the punishment of removal from service was grossly disproportionate, warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Summary: The petitioner, a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, was proceeded against departmentally on allegations of assaulting a superior officer, misbehaviour, and habitual misconduct. Following a departmental enquiry, all charges were held proved and the petitioner was removed from service. His statutory appeal was dismissed, leading to the present writ petition after remand by the Supreme Court for adjudication on merits.
The High Court closely examined the enquiry record and noted that out of ten witnesses examined, only two were complainants, while the majority of independent and co-worker witnesses did not support the prosecution version and, in fact, denied the occurrence of any untoward incident. The Court found that the enquiry officer ignored material contradictions in witness testimonies and failed to assess their evidentiary value in a reasoned manner.
The Court also noted that despite allegations of physical assault, no medical evidence was produced to corroborate the complaint, nor was any effort made during the enquiry to obtain such evidence. This omission, coupled with the failure to examine nearby personnel who were allegedly present, rendered the enquiry procedurally flawed and biased.
On the issue of habitual misconduct, the Court held that past disciplinary record can at best be a supplementary factor and cannot substitute proof of present charges. The petitioner’s prior service record was largely unblemished, and minor past infractions could not justify removal when the foundational allegations themselves were unsubstantiated.
Applying the doctrine of proportionality and settled principles of judicial review, the Court held that the punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The orders of removal from service and rejection of appeal were quashed. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Arrears of salary and allowances were directed to carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date they became due until realisation, with compliance to be ensured within four weeks.