Delhi High Court Upholds CISF Disciplinary Action Against Officer for Sexual Harassment
Court finds no merit in petition challenging the inquiry process and punishment imposed on officer for inappropriate conduct.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the disciplinary actions taken against Khaja Hussain, a Sub-Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), who was found guilty of sexual harassment at the workplace. The court dismissed Hussain's writ petition challenging the departmental inquiry and subsequent punitive measures imposed on him.
The bench, comprising Justices Subramonium Prasad and Vimal Kumar Yadav, reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference in disciplinary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that its role is not to reappreciate evidence or review the findings of departmental authorities, but to ensure that the inquiry was conducted by a competent authority, followed prescribed procedures, and adhered to principles of natural justice.
Hussain, appointed as a Sub-Inspector in CISF in 2013, faced allegations of sending vulgar messages and making inappropriate advances towards a female colleague, Mahashweta Patel, during his posting at the Vindhyanagar unit. The inquiry committee, constituted under Rule 36 of CISF Rules 2001, examined statements from several witnesses and reviewed evidence including call recordings and WhatsApp messages.
The petitioner contended that the complaint was false and motivated by personal animosity, and argued that the committee had selectively considered evidence against him. However, the court found that the departmental inquiry was conducted fairly, and the allegations fell squarely within the definition of sexual harassment under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013.
Hussain’s failure to file an appeal within the stipulated time under Section 18 of the POSH Act and opting instead for a revision petition was noted by the court. The revision petition had been dismissed by the CISF Director General, who upheld the findings of the inquiry committee and deemed the petitioner’s conduct unacceptable for a member of a uniformed force.
The court pointed out that the disciplinary authority’s conclusions were based on legal evidence and were neither arbitrary nor capricious. The punishment of pay reduction for two years was deemed commensurate with the misconduct. The judgment underscored the expectation of ethical conduct from members of uniformed services, highlighting that the petitioner, being married, was morally obligated to refrain from inappropriate relationships.
This ruling reaffirms the judiciary’s stance on maintaining the integrity of disciplinary processes within security forces and ensuring that workplace harassment is addressed with due seriousness.
Bottom Line:
Scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary proceedings is limited to determining whether the enquiry was conducted by a competent authority, according to prescribed procedures, and in compliance with the principles of natural justice - Courts cannot act as appellate authorities to reappreciate evidence or review disciplinary findings.
Statutory provision(s):
- - Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- - Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, Section 18
- - CISF Rule 2001, Rule 36
