The court emphasizes the necessity of adhering to lawful orders in maintaining discipline within paramilitary forces.
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has upheld the disciplinary action taken against Piyali Sarkar, a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), for her non-compliance with a movement order. The court underscored the importance of discipline within paramilitary forces and reiterated that lawful orders must be obeyed to maintain operational efficiency and integrity.
The case revolved around a movement order issued to Sarkar on January 4, 2020, directing her to join Internal Security Duty in Delhi. Sarkar did not comply, citing personal reasons, including her husband's army posting and her responsibilities towards a young child. Despite prior intimation to her superior regarding her inability to comply, disciplinary proceedings were initiated, resulting in a reduction of her pay scale as a punitive measure.
Sarkar's appeal against the disciplinary action was dismissed by the writ court in December 2022, which she subsequently challenged in an intra-court appeal. The division bench, comprising Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Prasenjit Biswas, heard arguments from both sides, focusing on the statutory obligations under the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, particularly Sections 8 and 10, which mandate compliance with lawful orders.
In its judgment, the court noted that the petitioner's prior intimation did not equate to permission to disobey a lawful order. The bench highlighted the potential for disciplinary breakdown if intimation were considered a valid excuse for non-compliance. The judgment emphasized that such a precedent would disrupt the discipline crucial to the functioning of paramilitary organizations.
The court further affirmed that procedural requirements were duly followed during the disciplinary proceedings, and there was no allegation of procedural lapses. The bench rejected the argument that the charge was unsubstantiated due to the petitioner's prior intimation, maintaining that the statutory mandate under Section 10 of the CISF Act required her to obey the movement order.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the necessity for strict adherence to lawful orders within the CISF and other similar forces. The ruling serves as a reminder of the disciplined structure essential for maintaining national security and the responsibilities incumbent upon members of paramilitary organizations.
Bottom Line:
Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 - Disciplinary proceedings - Duty to obey lawful orders - Non-compliance with a movement order issued to a Constable in a paramilitary force, even with prior intimation, cannot be justified as it violates the mandate under Section 10 of the CISF Act, 1968, and disrupts the discipline required in the force.
Statutory provision(s): Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 Sections 8, 10; Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 Rule 32(1), Rule 34(v)
Piyali Sarkar v. Union of India, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2838655
