Superior's Command To Be Followed Even At Cost Of Personal Suffering- Madras HC Refuses Relief To Former CISF Constable
A Madras High Court Bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan has observed that the member of the armed force must uphold the principles of discipline and must not show resistance to the superior or higher officer while refusing relief to CISF Constable.
"Any member of armed forces is expected to uphold principles of discipline to the utmost. There can never be any resistance shown to the superior or higher officer. The command is a command and should be followed even at the cause of personal suffering."
Counsel AS Mujibur Rahman appeared for the petitioner, while Central Government Standing Counsel K Ramanamoorthy appeared for the respondent.
In this case, the Court was considering a case involving Jarin Singh, a former constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), who challenged a compulsory retirement order.
The incident leading to this involved Singh being checked for corruption by CISF's Central Vigilance Team. They claimed that during the check, Singh swallowed something hidden under his belt, believed to be Indian currency notes. Despite attempts to retrieve it from his mouth, Singh resisted. This behavior led to a charge against him, alleging gross misconduct and obstruction of evidence. After an inquiry, his punishment was initially removal from service, later modified to compulsory retirement on appeal.
To defend himself, Singh submitted a 35-minute CCTV footage showing that he didn't take any currency notes-like objects but was actually taking medicine for a mouth itch. He also referred to an endoscopy result as evidence of his innocence.
The Court observed that the conduct of the petitioner subsequent to the allegation was very relevant. In that context, it was further said that, "The conduct of this particular petition at the time when the vigilance team came is therefore relevant. It is not required that the disciplinary proceedings, the allegations should be proved by the measure of strict proof. There could be preponderance of probabilities but still both strict proof and preponderance of probabilities are based on the same nature of evidence."
The Court also took the considered view that in departmental proceedings, there could be a presumption drawn between the evidence available and the charge which is inflicted on the delinquent. In that context, it was observed that "In the instant case, the charge was that the petitioner had removed certain things under his belt, put them in his mouth and when questioned tried to run away and prevented taking them out from the mouth but rather swallowed them. This conduct becomes relevant, particularly when the respondents raised a strong presumption that what was so swallowed by the petitioner were Indian currency notes. Therefore, there cannot be any alternate finding which could be rendered."
In light of the same, the petition was dismissed by the High Court.
Cause Title: S Jarin Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
