High Court Dismisses CISF Officer's Appeal, Upholds Disciplinary Action for Slapping a Passenger.


22-August-2025 Civil Writ Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law  

This writ petition of Ram Surat Singh v/s Director General Central Industrial Security Force & Others, filed by a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Sub-Inspector, sought to overturn three disciplinary orders related to an incident where he slapped a passenger at the Mumbai International Airport. The petitioner, a CISF officer since 2006, was on duty in January 2016 when he got into a scuffle with a reportedly drunken passenger who was trying to enter the airport without a valid ticket and was verbally abusing him. The officer's act of slapping the passenger was captured on CCTV.

 

 

A disciplinary inquiry was initiated, which found the officer's actions in breach of discipline and negligence.

  • The Disciplinary Authority initially penalized him with a reduction in pay by one stage for one year.
  • The Appellate Authority increased the penalty to a two-year reduction with a postponement of future increments.
  • The Revisional Authority later modified this, maintaining the two-year reduction but allowing increments during that period and ensuring no impact on future ones.
The petitioner's lawyer argued that the punishment was disproportionate given the passenger's behavior and that the authorities had not provided sufficient reasoning for imposing a "major" penalty.

The respondents' counsel countered that the officer's conduct was "highly unbecoming" of an armed forces member and tarnished the image of the CISF. He pointed out that the officer's actions violated the CISF's Standing Order ISO 9001:2008, which prohibits physical violence. He also cited legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Chatrapal v. State of U.P. and Union of India v. Sunil Kumar, which state that courts have a very limited scope to interfere in disciplinary matters unless there is a grave error or the punishment is "strikingly disproportionate."

The High Court agreed with the respondents. It noted that the petitioner did not claim any procedural errors or a lack of adherence to natural justice. The court's role is not to re-evaluate evidence but to ensure the disciplinary process was legally sound. The court concluded that the officer's actions directly violated a standing order and that the punishment was not so severe as to "shock the conscience" of the court.
Ultimately, the court found no reason to intervene and dismissed the petition. However, it also directed that the punishment should not have any bearing on the petitioner's future promotions.