'Guardian Became Looter' : Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of ITBP Constable For Robbing Cash Box

The Supreme Court recently upheld a Para Military Force sentry's dismissal from service as a punishment for robbing a cash box that he was supposed to guard while on duty."The respondent, was obligated to perform his duties and guard the cash boxes with utmost dedication, honesty, commitment, and discipline. However, contrary to the faith and trust reposed in him by his superiors, he broke open the cash box. He has, therefore, committed robbery of the cash amount, which he was designated to protect...All members of the force must note that there is zero tolerance for such brazen misconduct, where the guardian of the cash box became its looter...In fact, the misconduct proved against the respondent is so grave and alarming that any punishment less than dismissal from service would prove inadequate and insufficient", a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh observed.The Court was dealing with a challenge by the Union to Uttarakhand High Court's order asking the Union and Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) to reconsider if the respondent-officer's dismissal could be substituted with a lesser punishment.The respondent was recruited as a Constable with ITBP in 1990. On the intervening night of 04.07.2005/05.07.2005, he was performing duty as a Sentry and guarding cash boxes containing lakhs of rupees to be disbursed to Coy personnel. Allegedly, he broke open the lock of the cash boxes, took the cash and fled from his post.After registration of an FIR, it was established in a Court of Enquiry that the respondent was guilty of the alleged crime. He also apparently confessed. Pursuant to findings given by the Summary Force Court, he was dismissed from service on 14.11.2005. After his departmental appeal was dismissed, he approached the High Court.A Single Bench of the High Court rejected the respondent's contention that the confession was coerced and involuntary. However, it observed that the Disciplinary Authority did not follow the proportionality principle insofar as it directly ordered the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. Considering that the respondent acknowledged his misconduct and cooperated with the Disciplinary Authority, the Single Bench opined that there was repentance on his part and he sought to rectify himself.As such, the bench ordered the authorities to reconsider the quantum of punishment with an open mind. When the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the authorities' intra-court appeal, they approached the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court observed that the doctrine of proportionality is deeply embedded as a part of constitutionalism and the quantum of punishment imposed by an authority can be questioned as well as annulled if the action is arbitrary, vengeful or so harsh that is "pricks the conscience of the Court". However, invocation of the principle depends on facts of each case.Specific to the case at hand, the Court noted that the respondent was part of a "disciplined Para Military Force" and was posted in a sensitive border area. The allegations against him were duly proved in Summary Court proceedings based on multiple evidence, including a confessional statement, and the fairness of the same was not doubted by the High Court.The Court stated that after returning a finding of guilt qua the respondent's "gross misconduct" involving moral turpitude, the Disciplinary Authority was dutybound to impose a befitting punishment. "This duty is amplified, especially in Para Military Forces, where discipline, ethics, loyalty, dedication to service, and reliability are essential to the job", it said.In arriving at a decision, the Court also observed that the respondent was previously found guilty of minor misconducts on 8 separate occasions and was punished. In this backdrop, it concluded,"The High Court ought not to have exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to compel the Authorities to impose a punishment less than dismissal from service."Accordingly, the authorities' appeal was allowed and the High Court orders to reconsider the respondent's punishment set aside.Case Title: UNION OF INDIA v. NO. 900224364 CONST/G.D. JAGESHWAR SINGH, C.A. No. 7029/2025Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 668Click here to read order

'Guardian Became Looter' : Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of ITBP Constable For Robbing Cash Box

Debby Jain

"All members of the Force must note there's zero tolerance for such brazen misconduct", Court observed.

Tags