Disobedience Of Lawful Order By CISF Personnel Constitutes Misconduct Regardless Of Prior Intimation Of Non‑Compliance : Calcutta HC

Background Facts

The employee was a Constable with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). She was issued a movement order directing her to join Internal Security Duty in Delhi. She did not proceed for duty. However, she informed her superiors the same day that due to reasons that her husband was in the army and posted at her current location, and having a small child, it was not convenient for her to comply.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her. She was punished with reduction of pay by one stage for one year, further she would not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction. The period of suspension was directed to be treated as not on duty.

The employee challenged the punishment before the authorities, which upheld the disciplinary action. Subsequently, she filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the employee preferred the intra-court appeal before the Division Bench.

It was argued by the employee that the orders passed by the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority were not sustainable. She had intimated regarding not complying with the order of movement dated 04.01.2020. On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents that the employee, as a member of a disciplined force, was under a strict statutory duty to obey all lawful orders.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the employee was a Constable in a paramilitary force, hence she was bound by a higher standard of discipline and duty. The CISF Act, 1968, lays down the duties of every member of the force to obey and execute all orders lawfully issued by a superior authority.

It was noted that the employee had requested her superior authority not to assign IS Duty a week before it was issued. Despite such request, she was assigned IS Duty, which she responded to on the same date stating that it was not convenient for her to comply with the order due to personal reasons.

It was held by the Court that the charge memo's phrase “without any information or permission of competent authority” cannot be interpreted in a way to infer that the movement order dated 04.01.2020 was capable of being disobeyed if an intimation was given by the employee, who was otherwise duty bound to comply with the order. Such inference would have disastrous consequences on the force, paving the way for violating orders lawfully issued by a superior authority, under intimation to them, which the force members are otherwise under a statutory duty to obey.

It was further observed that the words “information” and “permission” in the charge must be read together to infer that without permission of the competent authority, merely by giving an intimation the movement order could not be disobeyed by the employee. Any other inference of the charge would be contrary to the provisions of the CISF Act.

It was held by the Division Bench that the employee was duty bound to obey the movement order dated 04.01.2020, and disobedience of the same invited action under the CISF Act.

Hence, the Single Judge's decision to uphold the punishment was affirmed by the Division Bench. Consequently, the intra-court appeal filed by the employee was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Piyali Sarkar vs. Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: M.A.T. 963 of 2023

Counsel for the Appellant : Vivekananda Bose, Sumitava Chakraborty, Bratati Pramanick, Ipsita Ghosh

Counsel for the Respondent : Uttam Basak