Court Orders Reinstatement and a Review of Suspension Emoluments, Citing Lack of Factual and Legal Basis for Dismissal
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has quashed the removal of Vijay Kumar Pandey, a Head Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), who was dismissed from service solely due to his incarceration in a pending criminal case. The court emphasized that removal from service cannot be justified merely on the grounds of incarceration without a conviction and stressed the necessity for adherence to proper procedures for suspension and disciplinary actions.
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Rajan Roy and Rajeev Bharti, delivered the judgment on November 18, 2025, in response to an appeal by the Union of India against the order passed by a Single Judge, which favored Pandey. The appeal contested the Single Judge's decision to allow Pandey's writ petition challenging his removal from service.
Pandey, who was appointed to CISF in 2009 after retiring from the Indian Army, was implicated in a criminal case under Sections 302, 201, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, resulting in his incarceration from May 1, 2019, to September 20, 2019. Although he was granted bail, he faced disciplinary proceedings and was ultimately removed from service in December 2019 based on his alleged involvement in the criminal case, which is still under trial.
The High Court noted that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated without any conviction or findings in the trial, rendering the removal order baseless. The judgment underscored that a mere presumption of guilt, without factual and legal substantiation, cannot justify such severe disciplinary action. The court further clarified that the correct course of action would have been to place Pandey under suspension under Rule 33(1)(b) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, rather than removing him from service.
Additionally, the court directed the competent authority to decide on the payment of suspension emoluments and post-retiral dues within three months, as per the applicable rules, including FR-53, FR-54A, and FR-54B of the Financial Handbook.
This ruling not only reinstates Pandey but also sets a precedent emphasizing the importance of following due process and ensuring decisions are based on concrete evidence rather than presumptions, especially in cases involving the livelihood of government employees.
Bottom Line:
Removal from service cannot be justified solely based on incarceration in a criminal case pending trial without any conviction. Proper procedure must be followed for suspension and disciplinary actions.
Statutory provision(s): Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 - Rule 32, Rule 33; Fundamental Rules FR-53, FR-54A, FR-54B; CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Rule 3
Union of India v. Vijay Kumar Pandey, (Allahabad)(Lucknow)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2810665
