CISF Personnel Carrying 'Spy Pen' Camera While On Duty At Sensitive Location Is Serious Misconduct: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that a member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) found carrying a spy pen camera with a memory card while on duty at a sensitive installation cannot seek leniency merely because the device was not used. The Court restored the disciplinary punishment imposed on the constable, observing that members of a disciplined force entrusted with...
The Calcutta High Court has held that a member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) found carrying a spy pen camera with a memory card while on duty at a sensitive installation cannot seek leniency merely because the device was not used. The Court restored the disciplinary punishment imposed on the constable, observing that members of a disciplined force entrusted with securing installations of national importance are expected to maintain the highest standards of discipline and integrity.
A Division Bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas allowed an appeal filed by the Union of India and set aside a Single Judge's order which had modified the punishment imposed on the CISF constable.
"The installations being guarded by the Force (CISF)... are normally installations of national importance... The requirement of high degree of discipline, integrity and dedication to the duties from Members of a Force like the CISF has been repeatedly stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India," the Bench observed.
The Court further held: "When Members of such a force... are found carrying a spy pen camera with memory card, while on duty, the same cannot be viewed with any degree of leniency... Merely because the spy pen camera was not used by the Member of the Force cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance."
Background
The respondent, a CISF constable, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings after he was found carrying a spy pen camera while on duty. The department held the charge proved and imposed the penalty of reducing his pay by one stage for two years, denying increments during that period, postponing future increments, and treating his suspension period as "not on duty."
The constable challenged the punishment before a Single Judge of the High Court. While upholding the findings of guilt, the Single Judge partly interfered with the punishment by setting aside the direction postponing future increments and the order treating the suspension period as "not on duty."
Aggrieved by the interference with the punishment, the Union of India preferred an intra-court appeal.
Court's Findings
The Division Bench noted that the Single Judge had unequivocally held that the constable's conduct amounted to misconduct and misbehaviour driven by ill motive. Once such findings had been recorded, there was no justification for reducing the punishment in the absence of any mitigating circumstances.
The Bench observed that judicial review over disciplinary punishment is limited and interference is permissible only where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. Relying on the principles laid down in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, the Court held that the Single Judge had failed to record any finding that the punishment was excessive or shockingly disproportionate.
The Court also rejected the constable's contention that the incident was linked to an earlier personal dispute with a superior officer. It held that his earlier exoneration in another disciplinary proceeding could not, by itself, justify an allegation of bias or explain his conduct in carrying the prohibited device inside a protected installation.
The Bench noted that the constable had been found carrying the spy pen camera in the pocket of his uniform just minutes before commencing duty at a guarded installation after being called for counselling by his superior officer.
It further held that there was no material supporting the Single Judge's observation that the misconduct stemmed from a personal dispute or that the constable had no intention to capture confidential information. The plea of bias, the Court said, could succeed only upon proof of a reasonable likelihood of bias based on tangible material, which was absent in the present case.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. S. Vasanthi (2014), the Bench reiterated that courts exercising judicial review should ordinarily refrain from modifying disciplinary punishments unless the statutory threshold for interference is satisfied.
Holding that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, the Division Bench restored the original penalty and allowed the Union's appeal.
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Sanjit Sahu
Case No.: M.A.T. 1076 of 2025