A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and MM Sathaye said that the statement of the constable in the inquiry showed that he had admitted to having consumed alcohol before the incident. (File photo)Declining to quash the penalty imposed on a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel for misconduct, the Bombay High Court on March 11 observed that knocking on the doors of a woman at odd hours asking for a lemon was “unbecoming” of an officer of the force.
The 33-year-old constable had approached the high court against a penalty imposed on him by reduction in his pay for three years from 2021. An order passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Western Zone, CISF, in 2021 and a revisional order passed in 2022 passed by the Inspector General, CISF, had directed that the constable will also not earn increment of pay for three years.
The charge against him was that on the intervening night of April 19 and April 20, 2021, he had knocked on the door of a neighbour around midnight in the residential quarters of CISF personnel. The neighbour said that she was alone at home with her six-year-old daughter as her husband was on election duty in West Bengal.
In his petition, the constable claimed that the punishment was disproportionate to the nature of the allegations. He had said that there was no malafide and that he had knocked on the door of the complainant as he had an upset stomach and needed a lemon.
A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and MM Sathaye said that the statement of the constable in the inquiry showed that he had admitted to having consumed alcohol before the incident.
“In these facts of the case, the action of petitioner of knocking on neighbor’s door knowing that the man in the house is absent, the same being occupied by a lady with her six-year-old daughter and that too for a frivolous reason of getting a lemon for so called medical emergency of stomach upset, is preposterous to say the least,” the bench said. It said that the intention of the constable was not found to be genuine.
One of the arguments of the constable was also that at the time of the incident, he was not on duty, therefore, misconduct under rules governing the force, will not apply on him. The court said that the rules show that personnel of the force are required to maintain integrity and do nothing that is unbecoming of a government servant “at all times”.