Delhi High Court
Nand Kishor Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 3 July, 2026
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 20.04.2026
Judgment delivered on: 03.07.2026
Judgment uploaded on: As per Digital Signature~
+ W.P.(C) 16663/2023
NAND KISHOR SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person.
For the Respondents : Ms. Archana Gaur CGSC, Ms. Ridhima
Gaur, Mr. Deepu Kumar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
“A. Issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent No. 2
with a direction for quashing the impugned order
dated 03.11.2021 passed by the respondent No.5, and
reinstating the petitioner in services with all the
consequential benefits.
B. Issue an appropriate writ directing the respondents
No. 2 to 5 to pay the cost to the petitioner.
C. Any other relief, order or direction this court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstancesSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 1 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
of this case also be issued in the favour of the
petitioner, and against the respondents, in the interest
of justice.
2. The facts which can be gathered from the petition are as follows; The
petitioner had joined CISF on 09.11.2000 as a Constable/Cook at
Chittodgarh, Rajasthan and in the year 2006, the petitioner was appointed as
Constable/Driver through the open recruitment to the post of
Constable/Driver at Bhilai, Madhya Pradesh. It is his case that he provided
services at different places as a Constable/Driver without Modified Assured
Career Progression (“MACP”) Scheme, which according to him, was due to
him since 2006.
3. As per the petitioner, who appears in person, he had submitted
representations to the respondents time to time for seeking promotion and
increment, however, the respondent nos. 2 to 5 had rejected his application
and had awarded different nature of penalties to him. According to him, he
was entitled for promotion since 2012 as per the DoPT Promotion Rules.
4. He stated that the respondent no. 5 had issued a charge-sheet to the
petitioner on 15.12.2020, leveling 5 allegations against him. In this regard,
he has drawn our attention to Annexure-A of the paper-book, which is a
copy of the said charge-sheet. The charges in the said charge-sheet are in the
nature of misconduct to the effect of not vacating government family
accommodation despite specific orders, retaining family accommodation
beyond the stipulated period; using inappropriate language in various
applications to the senior authorities and refusing to occupy the
accommodation allotted him as per his choice and not vacating the occupied
premises beyond the permissible period and even after being awarded nine
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 2 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
minor penalties refused to improve his conduct.
5. The petitioner stated that as far as charge no. I is concerned, the
reason for him not to vacate the quarters by 30.07.2018 but on 12.10.2020,
was due to the illness of his wife. Despite the appeals filed to the respondent
no. 5 on two grounds primarily being the ill health of his wife and on the
ground of education of his children, appeals were rejected. He stated that his
wife suffers from Hepatitis-B, which is a chronic disease, which is why he
could not vacate the premises.
6. The charge no. II against the petitioner was regarding the same
government quarter wherein it was stated that significant time was spent by
the higher authorities focusing on a single individual and thereby wasting
the time and resources of the organisation amounting to a grave act of
indiscipline, the same was answered by the petitioner stating that he was
following the rules and procedures of his parent organisation and therefore,
this charge was wrongly attributed to him.
7. As far as charge no. III is concerned regarding use of improper
language, he has denied the same stating the he has not used any language
which harms the honour and dignity of the higher authorities. Regarding the
charge no. IV, which is of disobedience of a direction to occupy a
subsequent government accommodation and vacating the accommodation
allotted to him, he stated that the quarter, which was subsequently allotted
him, was not in a position to be occupied as the same required repair and
modification and he was not given any time to affect such repairs and that
there was no disobedience of the said order.
8. Regarding charge no. V, he stated that over the course of his
employment, he was awarded nine minor penalties which he had already
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 3 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
undergone. It is his case that he cannot be repeatedly punished for the same
misdemeanours for which he had already undergone penalties.
9. He fairly stated that after receiving a copy of the said charge-sheet, he
had approached this Court by way of a writ petition being W.P.(C) 776 of
2021 for quashing the same but it was withdrawn as being premature vide
order dated 19.01.2021, which has been annexed as Annexure-B.
10. The proceedings against the petitioner were initiated wherein an
officer at the level of Assistant Commandant was appointed as the Inquiring
Authority and another officer was appointed as the Presenting Officer. His
case is the demand of a defence representative was not allowed. After the
completion of the proceedings, the enquiry report was submitted to
respondent no. 5 and the respondent no. 5 on the basis of the said report,
removed the petitioner from service vide order dated 03.11.2021. Against
the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal but the same was rejected
by the respondent no. 4 vide order dated 05.01.2022. It was thereafter that
the petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent no. 3 who also
rejected the revision petition on 20.05.2022. Pursuant to the last rejection,
the petitioner also filed a mercy petition before respondent no. 2, which was
also rejected vide order dated 04.10.2022.
11. The petitioner has challenged the inquiry proceedings on the ground
that the petitioner was never allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. The
required documents / case materials were never provided to the petitioner
despite asking for the same. The complainants were not called for cross-
examination at any date of inquiry. The inquiry was conducted on
24.05.2021, 02.06.2021, 03.06.2021 and 16.07.2021 but the signatures of the
petitioner were taken on 18.09.2021. He further stated that he was neither
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 4 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
granted legal assistance like a defence representative nor was his reply to the
final report was considered before passing the order dated 03.11.2021.
12. Amongst other grounds, the petitioner has also stated that he was
never promoted despite having a long service. Being a person from the
Scheduled Caste community, he was also mistreated and was removed from
service on this ground as well. He further argued that the respondent no. 5
illegally deducted Rs. 4,200/- per month between period from 14.03.2019
and 15.04.2021, which brings the total amount to Rs. 1,09,200/- from the
salary on account of penal rent vide letter dated 23.04.2021 whereas the
salary slip of the petitioner shows that the aforesaid amount has been
deducted by the respondent no. 5 on account of water charges. He has
annexed the copies of the said salary slips with this petition. He has also
relied upon an order of the High Court of Kerala dated 05.02.2020 wherein
the petitioner’s request challenging his transfer on personal grounds was
considered and the Court had passed the following order: –
“4. Though the transfer was stated to be on request,
now it has been corrected. lust because there was a
mistake occurred in the order of transfer, the petitioner
is not entitled to continue at Kayamkulam itself. Even
though the petitioner pointed out that there are
sufficient number of posts to accommodate him and
that a compassionate consideration is to be taken in his
case taking note of the ailments of his wife, I am of the
view that it is for the respondents to consider where the
petitioner has to be posted. The petitioner has already
worked at Kayamkulam from 2012 to 2018, till the date
of Ext.PS order. Therefore, the respondents have
justified the transfer stating that it is within the
southern sector though it is in another unit and it is in
tune with the transfer norms. The learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submittedSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 5 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
a representation before the 3rd respondent on
18.09.2019 requesting for a transfer to Kayamkulam.
In case such a representation is received and is
pending, the respondents shall pass orders thereon in
accordance with law.”
13. He has also argued that the respondent nos. 2 to 5 have not released
the provident fund and other benefits, which are due to the petitioner.
14. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgments of the
Supreme Court in the cases of Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director,
U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors., 2026 INSC 305, Union of India
& Ors. v. Sukhwinder Singh, SLP (Civil) Diary No. 11301/2026 dated
01.04.2026 and Dinesh Gupta v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2024
INSC 32 in support of his submission.
15. Ms. Archana Gaur, learned CGSC on behalf of respondent no. 1 has
entered appearance and at the outset, has stated that the present petition is
not maintainable in this Court on the ground of lack of territorial
jurisdiction. She stated that entire cause of action including disciplinary
proceedings, the passing of the penalty order, appellate order and revisional
order have been passed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In
this regard, she has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254.
16. She stated that the Union of India has no direct role in the conduct of
disciplinary proceedings of Group B & C of the CISF personnel. The
Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority are all
statutory authorities under the CISF Act and Rules.
17. The disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner were initiated and
concluded strictly in accordance with Rule 36 CISF Rules, 2001 (CISF
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 6 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
Rules) which prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalties. All the
requisite rules and procedures were followed during the departmental
inquiry and the petitioner was accorded full opportunity to defend himself.
The findings in the departmental inquiry are based on evidence on record
which proves the misconduct. A mere dissatisfaction with the outcome of
the inquiry does not constitute violation of natural justice. To buttress her
submissions, she has relied upon the judgment in the case of Karnataka
State Road Transport Corporation v. S.G. Kotturappa, (2005) 3 SCC 409.
18. According to her, the petitioner has also failed to show any procedural
irregularity or arbitrariness warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. It is trite law that the Court ought not to act
as a Court of appeal in matters of departmental proceedings. The judicial
review is confined to the decision making process. Furthermore, a
government employee does not have a fundamental right to continue in
service as was held by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tulsi Ram
Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398. She stated that the petitioner has not approached
this Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts, which distorts
the narrative, which is why the petitioner is not entitled to an equitable
relief.
19. She has further stated insofar as the stand of respondent nos. 2 to 5 is
concerned, that the petitioner was awarded penalty of “removal from
service” by Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, NLC, Neyveli, Tamil Nadu
vide final order no. 5754 dated 03.11.2021 on five counts of charges. The
appeal and revision petitions preferred by the petitioner were also
considered and rejected by the DIG, CISF Unit, NLC, Neyveli vide order
no. 81 dated 05.01.2022 and IG/SS, HQRs, Chennai vide order no. 6715
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 7 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
dated 20.05.2022 and being aggrieved by the aforementioned, the petitioner
chose to file the present petition.
20. Insofar as his plea of not being considered for promotion is
concerned, the petitioner was declared “Not Yet Fit” for 1st FUG under
MACP scheme since he had not secured three “Very Good” APAR grading
in the last five years, which is an essential criterion and his APAR for the
year 2015-16 was graded as “Average” vide GP HQRs, Cochin, USO Part-I
No. 95/2017 dated 11.09.2017.
21. In the year 2018, he was considered for the second time but he was
again declared “Not Yet Fit” for the 1st FUG under the MACP scheme for
the same ground that he had secured three “Very Good” APAR grading in
the last five years and his APAR grading for the year 2017 was graded as
“Good” vide GP HQRs, Cochin, USO Part-I No. 26 of 2018 dated
22.03.2018 and again for the third time, the petitioner was declared “Not Yet
Fit” for the 1st FUG under MACP scheme as a departmental enquiry under
Rule 36 of the CISF Rules was pending. He was granted regular increment
in the year 2017 for Rs. 31,100/- w.e.f. 01.07.2017 in level-III as per 7th
CPC. He was awarded a punishment of reduction of pay by one stage from
31,100/- to 30,200/- for a period of two years without cumulative effect vide
order dated 19.04.2018 and the said punishment was published on
21.09.2018. Ms. Gaur has drawn our attention in this regard to Annexure-IV
of the counter-affidavit. Later after completion of his punishments, his
increment was restored to Rs. 33,000/- in level-III as per the 7th CPC w.e.f.
19.04.2020. Due to the punishments and low APAR grading, he was not
qualified during the DPC Board and after fulfilling the eligibility criteria for
promotion, the personnel were promoted as per seniority. Hence, there is no
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 8 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
discrimination as alleged by the petitioner.
22. On the issue of discrepancies during the departmental inquiry, she
stated that it is a matter of record that Assistant Commandant Suraj Rai was
appointed as Enquiry Officer and Inspector K.V.A. Sridhar was appointed as
Presiding Officer. It was during the preliminary hearing on 15.02.2021, the
petitioner was specifically asked if he wanted to produce any serving
member of the Force as a part of his defense and if so, he must give their
names in writing with a consent letter from them, however, he declined to
avail the said opportunity. The inquiry was conducted as per the Rules of the
CISF and was given ample opportunity of being heard.
23. She stated that the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 have no role in the
disciplinary proceedings and hence, their direct involvement in the present
proceedings are unwarranted as they were the Revisional Authority,
Appellate Authority and Senior Commandant respectively.
24. The petitioner was also provided opportunities to defend his case by
taking defense assistant whereas he denied to avail the same. During the
course of inquiry, the petitioner had cross-examined PW-1 on 24.02.2021,
PW-2 on 26.02.2021, PW-3 on 26.02.2021 and PW-4 on 22.02.2021 and at
his request, he was allowed again to cross-examine PW-1 to PW-4 on
11.05.2021 and 17.05.2021 and accordingly, signed in the statements by
Inquiry Officer and the Presiding Officer. Further, during the course of the
inquiry, on request of the petitioner, additional documents were also
provided to him through the Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 16.02.2021,
which was acknowledged by him on 18.02.2021, the same has been placed
before us as Annexure-X.
25. The petitioner was also provided an opportunity to submit his
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 9 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
representation, if any, against the inquiry report before passing of the final
order by the Disciplinary Authority, which he submitted through
representation dated 12.10.2021, which was also discussed in the final order
of the Disciplinary Authority, hence, the contention of the petitioner that the
final order was issued by respondent no. 5 is not true.
26. The petitioner also made a representation through the e-grievance
platform on 18.09.2018 that his representation on various issues were not
being addressed, however, the same was disposed of by the Competent
Authority on 16.10.2018.
27. Insofar as the issue of recovery of penal rents is concerned, the same
was done against the unauthorised occupation of government
accommodation at CISF Unit, KCCPP, Kayamkulam and the same was
reflected in the pay slips. Hence, there were no wrong deductions from the
pay of the petitioner and the plea that the same were deducted on the
grounds of water charges by the respondent no. 5 is untenable.
28. Insofar as the argument taken by the petitioner on the ground of ill
health of his wife is concerned, she argued that the same should have been
agitated before the Competent Authority as the transfer policy in the CISF is
clear and the transfers take place every 3 to 4 years. The argument that
respondent no. 5 had ignored and rejected his application dated 29.06.2020
is concerned, the same is not tenable as they had replied to the said letter
vide CISF Unit NLC Neyvali letter no. 1847 dated 20.07.2020 wherein it
was recorded that the petitioner was not under the territorial jurisdiction of
respondent no. 5. The said letter has also been placed before us as
Annexure-XI. The petitioner after the award of penalty of removal from
service was informed through several letters to vacate the government
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 10 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
quarters at NLC, Neyvali, Tamil Nadu, he chose not to comply with the
orders of the Competent Authority and now has made a false claim that
moveable property was seized by the respondents.
29. We must at this stage refer to the charges that were made against the
petitioner, which reads as under: –
“ARTICLE OF CHARGE- I
CISF No. 001710016 Const/Dvr Nand Kishor Singh of
‘HQrs’ Coy., CISF Unit NLC Neyve1i reported at CISF
Unit NLC Neyveli on regular posting from CISF Unit
NTPC Kayamkulam on 10.05.2018. While posted at
CISF Unit NTPC Kayamkulam, he was allotted with
Qtr. No.A-10, NTPC Kayamkulam. On transfer, he was
permitted to retain his family accommodation Qtr
No.A-10, NTPC Kayamkulam at his previous unit for a
period of 03 months i.e. upto 30.07.2018. After
completion of retention period, he did not vacate the
said Govt. Family accommodation despite specific
orders issued in this regard by the Competent
Authority. Repeated directions were given to him to
vacate the Quarters by the Competent Authority. He
finally vacated the Quarters on 12.10.2020. Thus he
disobeyed the lawful orders of the Superior Authority
which amounts to grave act of indiscipline, gross
misconduct and unbecoming act of an enrolled member
of a Central Armed Police Force of the Union i.e.
CISF. Hence the charge.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE -II
CISF No. 001710016 Const/Dvr Nand Kishor Singh of
‘HQrs’ Coy., CISF Unit. NLC Neyveli has requested
for retention of Family Quarters No. A-10 which was
occupied by him from the year 2012 at his previous
unit i.e. C!SF Unit NTPC Kayamkulam and on
consideration of the case on merit, the competent
authority has permitted to retain the family
accommodation upto 30.07.2018. Instead of obeying
the orders to vacate the Quarter No.A-10, retained bySignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 11 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
him at CISF Unit NTPC Kayamkulam w.e.f.
31.07.2018, he engaged his seniors and Higher
Formations in repeated and avoidable communication.
Thus, he engaged the Higher Formation I Sr. Officers I
Unit Administration focusing on a single individual,
thereby wasting the valuable time and resources of the
Organization. This act amounts to grave act of
indiscipline and unbecoming act of an enrolled
member of a Central Armed Police Force of the Union
i.e. CISF. Hence the charge.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE-III
CISF No. 001710016 Const/Dvr Nand Kishor Singh of
‘HQrs’ Coy., CISF Unit NLC Neyve1i was found to
have used inappropriate and threatening words in his
various applications addressed to the Seniors and
Higher Formations exhibiting disregards and
disrespect to his Superiors in the various applications
addressed to the Seniors concerning extension of
Quarters at his previous Unit i.e. CISF Unit NTPC
Kayamkulam and other issues. Thus, he transgressed
all limits of acceptable and disciplined behaviour and
rendered himself unbecoming of member of the Force.
Hence the charge.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE-IV
CISF No. 001710016 Const/Dvr Nand Kishor Singh of
‘HQrs’ Coy., CISF Unit NLC Neyveli has willfully
refused to occupy Qtr. No.105-A, Type-I at Block-22,
Neyveli Township, despite being allotted with the
Quarter at Ground Floor as per his choice. Further, on
his request, he was allotted Qtr. No.206/B, Hostel Type
at Block-22 on temporary basis for a period of one
month from 22.10.2020. Whereas, after completion of
permitted time and even after allotment of regular
Family accommodation, he has not vacated Qtr.
No.206/B, Hostel Type at Block-22 and willfully
occupied the same beyond permissible period and
refused to occupy the allotted Quarter No. 139-A at
Block-22. Thus he disobeyed the orders of Superior
authority. This act amounts to grave act of indiscipline,Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 12 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
gross misconduct and unbecoming act of an enrolled
member of a Central Armed Police Force of the Union
i.e. CISF. Hence the charge.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE-V
CISF No. 001710016 Const/Dvr Nand Kishor Singh of
‘HQrs’ Coy., CISF Unit NLC Neyveli has been
awarded with 09 (Nine) minor penalties during his
past service. Even after being awarded with 09 (Nine)
minor penalties, Const/Dvr Nand Kishor Singh has not
mended his ways and remained indisciplined. Hence
the charge.”
30. Pursuant to the departmental inquiry, the following order for dismissal
dated 03.11.2021 was passed, which we reproduce as under: –
“13. Thus, from the above, I, the Disciplinary
Authority, conclude that the charge levelled against the
Charged Official under Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of
indiscipline, disobedience of lawful orders, gross
misconduct and unbecoming conduct is proved. The
departmental enquiry has been conducted as per Rule-
36 of the CISF Rules-2001. The Charged Official was
given full opportunity to present his defence. On the
application of the Charged Official, the departmental
enquiry was conducted in English and Hindi. During
the enquiry, the documents/evidences demanded by the
Charged Official were provided to him as per the CISF
Rules-2001. Despite that, the Charged Official failed to
prove himself innocent. On regular transfer of the
Charged Official from CISF unit KCCPP Kayamkulam
to CISF unit NLC Neyveli, he was allowed to occupy
the authorized government family accommodation at
CISF unit KCCPP Kayamkulam for 03 months i.e. till
30.07.2018. As per the order of the department, the
Charged Official could vacate the said accommodation
at the prescribed time and avail the benefits of
government family accommodation available at CISF
unit NLC Neyveli, Ayurvedic treatment for the
treatment of his wife and school for the education· ofSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 13 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
his children. Also, he could give an opportunity to a
force member working at CISF unit KCCPP
Kayamkulam to live with his family in the said
accommodation. If the Charged Official wanted to keep
his family in Kayamkulam Kerala due to any serious
problem, then he could take advantage of the Reduced
HRA provided to government employees by the
Government of India and could have adopted any other
means for his family instead of the government
accommodation as per rules. But the charged official,
instead of doing so, stubbornly kept the department
busy through his frequent and irregular
correspondence despite the instructions of the senior
officials of the department and used inappropriate
words in many of his applications. This forced the
department to unnecessarily waste its attention, time
and resources on himself, which is not expected from a
member of a disciplined force.
14. Not only this, the Charged Official, when a
government accommodation was allotted in his own
name as per rules in the CISF unit NLC Neyveli,
applied for special accommodation as per his wish
citing the reason of his wife’s treatment, which was
approved by the competent authority without any
delay, and later got it cancelled by him citing ‘no need
of accommodation’, again getting temporary
accommodation allotted as soon as possible for his
wife’s treatment, not vacating the said accommodation
on the prescribed time and insisting for permanent
allotment of the unit’s temporary accommodation, and
not accepting the accommodation allotted as per rules
on the basis of seniority and putting a condition of
getting it repaired by the department, shows his
indiscipline and unnecessarily keeping the department
busy on himself.
15. The Charged Official has been punished with 09
minor punishments in his previous service period,
despite this the Charged Official did not change his
attitude. Such acts of the Charged Official will not beSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 14 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
tolerated at all in the Central Armed Police Force.
Such Charged Official is not fit to remain in a
disciplinary force. His continuation in service may
have an adverse effect on other force members.
Therefore, I completely agree with the findings of the
Inquiry Officer. The Charged Official deserves severe
punishment.
16. On the basis of the above investigation, I, the
undersigned/Disciplinary Officer, exercising the
powers specified under Rule-32 of Schedule-I
(amended in 2013) read with Rule- 34 (ii) of CISF
Rules-2001, pass an order of punishment of
“REMOVAL FROM SERVICE” to CISF No.
001710016, Constable/Driver, Nand Kishore Singh,
HQ-Coy, CISF Unit NLC Neyveli with immediate
effect.
17. CISF No. 001710016, Constable/Driver, Nand
Kishore Singh, ClSF Unit NLC Neyveli is informed that
if he wishes, he can submit an appeal against this
order to the Appellate Authority, Deputy Inspector
General, CISF Unit NLC Neyveli within 30 days of the
receipt of the order.
18. A copy of this order is supplied free of cost to
Force No. 001710016 Constable/Driver, Nand Kishore
Singh, CISF Unit NLC Neyveli. He is also directed to
ensure receipt of this order.”
31. Having heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel for the
respondents. The short issue which arises for consideration is whether the
penalty of “removal from service” passed against the petitioner and also the
subsequent rejection of appeal of the petitioner against the order of removal
dated 03.11.2021 and revision petition vide order dated 20.05.2025 are
justified.
32. At the outset, we intend to deal with the submission made by Ms.
Gaur on the maintainability of the petition. According to her, the petition is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 15 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
not maintainable before this Court, inasmuch as, the entire cause of action
including disciplinary proceedings, issuance of the penalty order, appellate
order and revisional order were outside the jurisdiction of this Court and as
such the petition is not maintainable.
33. There cannot be any contest to the submission made by Ms. Gaur that
the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by the CISF Unit, Cuddalore,
Tamil Nadu. The order of removal was passed from Neyveli, Tamil Nadu,
the order of appeal was also passed Neyveli, Tamil Nadu, even the revision
petition was dismissed by the CISF, Headquarters, Chennai, hence in that
sense all the orders having been passed from outside Delhi prima facie, this
Court will not have the jurisdiction. It is also important, that the petitioner
has filed this petition by stating that he is the resident of Flat No. 1, P.S.-39,
Sector-39, Noida, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. Even
the said aspect would not make the petition maintainable in this Court,
merely by making the Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Home Affairs, Director General, CISF, Inspector General, CISF, Deputy
Inspector General, CISF and Assistant Inspector General, CISF as party
respondents. The above authorities have not passed any order which are
under challenge in this petition. However, we may note that this petition
was filed in the year 2023 and notice was issued to respondents on
22.12.2023. For the last three years, this petition is pending before Court.
This Court is of the view that it is too late in the day to dismiss the
petition on the groud of territorial jurisdiction, more so, when the
petitioner is appearing in person and an exception has to be drawn in the
facts of this case. As we have heard petitioner in person and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 16 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
respondents, we would decide the petition on merits by exercising our
discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme
Court in a recent judgment in the case of Baksish Ahmad v. Union of
India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1098 pronounced on 09.06.2026 had held
that the Delhi High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain service related
writ petitions of Central Armed Police Forces personnel where Union of
India and Headquarters of the Force in question are situated in Delhi.
34. Having said that the reason for the dismissal of the petitioner is
primarily issuance of a charge-sheet to the petitioner under Rule 36 of the
CISF Rules, for major penalty. Five charges have been framed against the
petitioner, the same have been reproduced above.
35. Suffice to state, pursuant to the issuance of the chargesheet, the
Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the inquiry and the charges
which have been framed against the petitioner are primarily relatable to
the fact that:-
I. After completion of retention period of holding a quarter allotted to
the petitioner being Qtr. No. A-10, NTPC, Kayamkulam, he did not
vacate the said Government Family accommodation despite specific
orders issued in this regard by the Competent Authority till
12.10.2020.
II. The Competent Authority had permitted to retain the family
accommodation upto 30.07.2018. The petitioner instead of obeying
the orders to vacate the Qtr. No. A-10, NTPC, Kayamkulam retained
by him. The allegation being that he has kept his seniors and higher
formations engaged and focused on one individual. Thus, wasting
the valuable time and resources of the Organisation which amounts
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 17 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
to a grave act of indiscipline and an unbecoming act of an enrolled
member of a CAPF.
III. He has found to have used inappropriate and threatening words in his
various application addressed to the seniors and higher formations,
exhibiting disregard and disrespect to his superiors, rendering
himself unbecoming of member of the force.
IV. He refused to occupy Qtr. No. 105-A, Type-1 at Block-22, Neyveli
Township, which was a quarter of his choice. On his request, he was
allotted Qtr. No. 206/B, Hostel Type at Block-22 on temporary basis
for a period of one month from 22.10.2020, but even after
completion of permitted time and even after allotment of regular
family accommodation, he did not vacate Qtr. No. 206/B, Hostel
Type at Block-22, and willfully occupied the same beyond
permissible period and refused to occupy the allotted Qtr. No.139-A
at Block-22. Thus, he disobeyed the order of Superior Authority.
V. The petitioner was awarded nine minor penalties during his past
service. Even after being awarded nine minor penalties, he has not
mended his ways and remained indiscipline.
36. Suffice to state that the petitioner had submitted his reply to the
chargesheet. The translated reply to the chargesheet as noted by the
Inquiry Officer on Charges I, II & III is the following:-
“1. At the outset it is submitted that the present Charge Sheet
is not maintainable in the eye of law, as the issuance of same
amounts to “double jeopardy” i.e., in the light of fact that
department has already punished by recovering about one
lakh rupees of penal rent (in the form of water charges) for
the period of occupation wef. 30.07.2018 to 12.10.2020 from
individual’s salary.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 18 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
2. Furhter, as has already been submitted by the individual in
his representation/application/ request letters written to the
department, the reason for not vacating Quarter No. A-10
NTPC Kayamkulam, was that petitioner’s wife suffers from
combination of three deadly diseases viz., Hepatitis-B,
Hypertension and diabetes. Further his wife was getting
Ayrvedic treatment at Kayamkulam and her condiion was
improving. Therefore, he kept requesting the department to
allow him to retain the family accommodation at
Kayamkulam.
3. That as has already been stated earler, it is submitted that
in Feb-2007 petitioner’s wife was diagnosed with Hepatitis-
B. Thereafter, she started taking treatment from different
hospitals in various parts of country, as per the place of
posting of the petitioner. That during interregnum
petitioner’s wife was also diagnosed with hypertension and
diabetes.
4. It is submitted Hepatitis -B is a viral infection that attacks
the liver and can cause both acute and chronic disease.
Hepatitis-B is a potentially life-threatening liver infection
caused by the hepatitis-B virus (HBV). It is a major global
health problem. It can cause chronic infection and puts
people at high risk of deah from cirrhosis and liver cancer.
Chronic hepatitis -B infection can be treated with medicines,
including oral antiviral agents. “That long-term, chronic
infection can lead to serious, even life-threatening health
issues lie cirrhosis or liver cancer. Chronic cases require
medication and possibly a liver transplant”. That treatment
can slow the progression of cirrhosis, reduce incidence of
liver cancer and improve long term survival. It was therefore
submitted before the department that the treatment is
essential for survival of the patient i.e., his wife, however
uinfortunately nobody in te department paid heed to the
individual’s request.
5. That as department did not pay any heed to the
individiual’s request for retention of family accommodation
at kayamkulam, he was left with no other option but to run
from pillar to post by writing several applications to variousSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 19 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
high-ranking officers, in a hope that at least someone would
show pity over him and will allow him to retain the family
accommodation at Kayamkulam.
6. Because as can be seen from order date 30.03.2017,
Hon’ble High Court of the Kerala took congnizance of the
fact that petitioner’s wife is seriously ill and requires
treatment. Therefore, Hon’ble High Court directed since
petitioner’s wife is undergoing treatment in Kerala, the
department shall see that the quarters allotted to the
petitioner is kept available to his family for a period of one
year. However, unfortunately department never recognised
this fact. Because as can be seen again from the order dated
05.02.2020 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in
WP C-14489 of 2018, Hon’ble Hight Court took a
compassionate view on the individual’s pitiable condition
and disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the
department to decide his representation as per law. It is most
humbly submitted that had there been no truth in yhe
individual’s grievance, Hon’ble High Court of Kerala would
not have taken a lenient view, which it had taken in its
judgment dated 30.03.2017 passed in WP C-9764 of 2017 by
directing deparments to not to vacate individual’s family for
a period of one year from the family accommoation at
Kayamkulam and by its order dated 05.02.2020 passed in
WP C-14889 of 2018 by directing department to dipose of
that representations of the individual. Therefore, it is
submitted that the request of individual for retention of family
accommodation at Kayamkulam was genuine, honest and a
bonafide request solely on the ground of his wife’s illness viz
., Hepatitis-B, Diabetes and Hypertension. Because the
department also admitted and accepted the fact that the
individual’s wife sufferes from Hepatitis-B , Diabees and
Hypertension.
7. That apart from that the individual’s wife ilness there was
another ground viz. Education of his children, for whch also
individual requested the department for retention of
familyaccommodation a Kayamkulam. However, with
malafide intentions and reason best known to the departmentSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 20 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
all the prayers and the petetions of the individual were
rejected without giving any reason.
8. Because vide general order dated 18.05.2020 with regard
to whole force, department
held that due to Covid-19 pandemic employees transferred
from one unit to another unit, will not asked to vacate the
family accommodation allotted to them, further they would be
entitled to etain family accommodation till 31.05.2020.
Despite this order department kept harassing the individual,
who is a caregiver to a disabled dependent viz. His wife and
not only that but also recovered the penal rent from the
individual when the whole country was reeling under Covid-
19 pandemic.
9. Because if the individual has quoted some
policies/guidelines /OMs issued by MHA/DoPT/CISF, for
relaxation in postings/transfer of personnel who are care
giver to a diasable dependent, then it cannot be stated that he
has committed any crime. It is submitted that these
policies/guidelines/OMs came into existence only for welfare
of employees who have disabled dependent like the individual
in the present case.
10. Therefore initiating the department proceeding only on
the ground for making repeated pleas by relying upon
various policies/guidelines?OMs issued by
MHA/DoPT/CISF, that too for his wife’s treatment is the
most inhumane and cruel action on the part of the
department.
11. Because at a time when the whole country is undergoing
from Covid-19 pandemic and when the government itself is
putting restrictions on movement, department in most cruel
and inhumane manner not only threatened the individual to
vacate the government family accommodation allotted to him
at NTPC Kerala, but kept charging penal rent from him.
12. Therefore it is submitted that department while acting as
“State” within the meaning of Article-12 of the consitution of
India, it is imperative that CISF, while implementing its
statutory power, should upholds the fundamental righsf the
citizens and strives hard to give effect to the directiveSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 21 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
principles of the state policy. Acting as state CISF, cannot
also shut its eyes to the part IV of the consitution of India,
where it is duty bound t take actions in general welfare of its
employees.
13. Because, any normal person would have taken the same
course of action as individual had taken in the light of fact
that the individual in the pay of Rs. 25000/- has not only to
take care of his ailing wife who is suffering from hepatitis-B,
hypertension, diabetes but also has to look after his two
yound children. Therefore it is submitted that the individual
committed no crime when it wrote to the depatments several
times for retention of family accommodation at Kayamkulam
and praying not to recover penal rent. And further praying
for refund of the deducted amount from his salary.
14. But as far a the use of words/phrases like fake, harassing
his whole family and cheating for the last four years,
blackmailing, torture and unbearable atrocities, during
travel any accident, infection, “casualty or death occurs in
his family, the unit authority would be held responsible”.
Illegal orders etc, it is submitted that the following
explanations is being put forth for the same viz.,
a. The individual being a constable is not a well-read
person, his knowledge of english language is poor, which
can be seen/assessed by reading the letter dated
23.05.2020, 27.08.2020, 07.09.2020 and 13.07.2020
written by him in
english to the department.
b. It is submitted that the english written in those letter is
not only grammatically incorrect but also lacks use of
proper vocabulary at right places. It is prayed that
department may not take te literal meaning of the words
used in letters dated 23.05.2020, 27.08.2020, 07.09.2020
and 13.07.2020, but should appreciate the individual’s
helpless and desperate situation, owing to his wife’s
illness for which he made the genuine request for
retention of family accommodation at Kayamkulam.”
37. The translated reply to Charge IV and Charge V is the following:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 22 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
“That the reason for requesting allotment of quarter number
206/B, Hostel type at Block-22, which is designated as ladies
barrack by the department, by the individual is that, quarter
allotted to the individual by the department viz quarter number
139-A, Block No. 22, is in such a dilapidated condition that no
normal personnel with the family of two young children could
occupy it, what to speak of when one member of family is
disabled dependent. It is submitted that quarter No. 139-A
block No. 22 which has been allotted to the individual is unfit
for human occupation, which can be seen from the photographs
annexed. It is submitted that the photographs clearly shows
there is no proper functional toilet, in fact the toilet seat stands
extracted from the floor and is lying far away from the sewage
hole. Window panes and doors are broken and plaster from
ceiling and walls is falling. There is no proper flooring and
what to mention of paint which is non-existent from the walls
and doors. In this regard several times department was
apprised by the individual with regard to dilapidated condition
of quarter No. 139-A block-22, however unfortunately again no
heed was paid to the individual request. It is submitted that
under these circumstances individual requested and wrote to
the department for allotment of quater No. 206/B, Hostel type
at block No-22 which is designated as ladies barrack by the
department, solely on the ground for providing a habitable
home for his ailing wife and growing young children.
Therefore, it is submitted that issuing a Charge Sheet on the
ground for not vacating quarter No. 206/B, Hostel type at block
-22, which is designated as ladies barrack by the department
and not ocupying dilapidated quarter number No. 139-A,
Block-22 is not only wrong but is also unjust and arbitrary on
the part of department, in view of the fact that no normal
person would put his family in danger by keeping them in such
a dilapidated and hopeless accommodation quarter No. 139-A,
Block-22 which lacks all the basic amentities.
Reply to Charge – V
That vide impugned Article of Charge-V, it has been held
that he has been awarded nine minor penalities during his past
service record and it has been further held that enven [sic.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 23 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
Even] after being awarded with nine minor penalties, the
individual has not mended his ways and 0remained
indisciplined, hence the charge.
01. That issue of not vacating the family accommodation at
Kayamkulam due to genuine medical problem of individual’s
wife (same being acknowledged by Hon’ble High Court of
Kerala, as has been mentioned in preceding paragraphs) and
the issue of earlier penalties awarded to the individual that too
at different units, further some of them being modified into
lesser penalties by competent authority by acknowledging
innocence of the individual, cannot be correlated with each
other, with any stretch of imagination.
02. That co-relating earlier penalties awarded to the individual
with the issue of not vacating the family accommodation at
Kayamkulam reeks of Malafide intent of the some officials of
the respondent department, which are hellbent on removing the
individual from the force at any cost.
03. That as can be seen from purported 9 penalties none of
them alleges grave misconduct of corruption against the
individual. Further department has never suffered any monitory
loss due to the misconduct alleged upon the individual while
awarding the nine penaltles [sic.penalties] upon him.
04. That the individual was never ever charged with allegations
of moral turpitude in his whole career.
05. That in fact in some penalties the earlier harsh punishment
awarded to the individual was modified by the appellate
authority, after going through his defence and founding
innocence and merit in his defence.
06. That in fact the last penalty which was awarded to the
individual on 14.08.2020 was deliberately changed from
advisory to withholding of one increment for a period of one
Jear without cumulative effect. It is submitted that individual is
in process of seeking legal remedies against that punishment
order, therefore it cannot be stated that that punishment has
attained finality.
07. That before proceeding further it is necessary to put forth in
brief, the defence of individual, against each of the nine
penalties awarded to him”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 24 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
38. We must state here the petitioner had also replied to the earlier
penalties imposed on him which is the subject matter of Article of Charge
No. 5. Nothing has been brought to our notice that those penalties have been
challenged by the petitioner before a Competent Court. Insofar as, the
proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer, pursuant to the impugned
charge-sheet is concerned, there is no dispute that the petitioner did
participate in the proceedings. The respondents have produced witnesses
during the course of inquiry. The respondents had also relied upon around
249 documents and the petitioner had also cross-examined the prosecution
witnesses. The petitioner had also submitted a representation on the brief
note submitted by the Presenting Officer on behalf of the department. The
findings of the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report are the followings:-
“During the preliminary inquiry, the force member himself
described the Hindi translation and meanings of certain words
during his question-and-answer session. Furthermore, during
the re-examination of Prosecution Witness-1 on May 11, 2021,
he himself asked in Question No. 12: “Sir, which words are
inappropriate and which are appropriate? Do you have a
certified list of appropriate/inappropriate words or not?” It is
clear from this question that the Charged Official used these
words with full consciousness and, according to his own
discretion, these words were not inappropriate. The force
member repeatedly demanded a certified list of inappropriate
words. Prior to the departmental inquiry, the force member had
conducted all correspondence in English; therefore, his
argument–that these inappropriate words were errors
resulting from language translation is baseless, as no other
literal inaccuracies were observed in his English
correspondence apart from these specific words. He repeatedly
used several inappropriate and undignified words in different
contexts against high-ranking officers/positions without any
facts or evidence. This demonstrates irresponsible behavior
and indiscipline while being a member of a disciplined force.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 25 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
In his application dated August 27, 2020, it was stated that if
any accident or death due to infection occurred to his family
during travel, the Unit Authority would be held responsible.
This reflects the force member’s illegal blackmailing attitude
and his tendency to threaten the department in his own favor.
This also highlights the force member’s inclination to
disregard the rules, regulations, and lawful orders of the
higher authority.
The force member was awarded nine minor punishments during
his tenure/previous service (under PW-03/Exh-01 to 09) to
encourage him to change his ways and remain disciplined.
Despite this, the force member did not improve himself, did not
change his conduct, and continued to violate the rules.
a) Negligence in Professional Duties (2001): On April 20,
2001, while posted as a Constable/Cook at the CISF Unit
CLZS Chittorgarh, the force member failed to cook fish
properly in the mess, resulting in the wastage of food.
Consequently, he was awarded the punishment of
‘Censure’ vide Final Order No. 685 dated July 6, 2001. This
indicates the force member’s negligence toward his
assigned work (PW-03/Exh-01).
b) Insubordination (2003): On March 19, 2003, while
posted at the CISF Unit ASG Nagpur, the force member
disobeyed the orders of the Mess Commander. Due to this,
a penalty of “fine equivalent to two days’ pay” was
imposed vide Final Order No. 314 dated April 11, 2003.
This shows that the force member was willfully defying the
orders of his superior officers (PW-03/Exh-02/P-01).
c) Overstayal of Leave (2003): During his posting at CISF
Unit ASG Nagpur, the force member remained on OSL
(Overstayal of Leave) for 14 days, from June 13, 2003, to
June 26, 2003. For this misconduct, he was awarded a “fine
equivalent to three days’ pay” vide Final Order No. 618
dated July 31, 2003, and SO Part-II No. 71/03 dated
August 5, 2003. This reflects the force member’s
indiscipline toward his duties (PW- 03/Exh-03/P-01&P-02).
d) Misuse of Government Property (2012): While posted at
CISF NISA Hyderabad, the force member misused a
government vehicle without the knowledge of the MTO
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 26 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
(Motor Transport Officer) or superior officers.
Consequently, he was awarded the punishment of
‘Censure’ vide Appellate Order No. 340 dated July 18,
2012. This further demonstrates the force member’s
habitual indiscipline toward his responsibilities (PW-
03/Exh-04/P-01 & P-02).
e) While posted at the CISF Unit NTPC/Kayamkulam, the
force member remained absent without information during
the night shift on 21-05-2013. For this reason, the
punishment of ‘Censure’ was awarded by the CISF Group
Headquarters Cochin via Appellate Order No. 2406 dated
18.03.2014. This indicates the force member’s indiscipline
toward his duties (PW-03/Exh-05 /P-01 to P-04).
f) The force member refused to receive an official
communication (Warning Letter) while posted at the CISF
Unit NTPC/Kayamkulam. Due to this, a penalty of “Fine of
five days’ wages” was imposed via Final Order No. 85
dated 19.01.2016 by the CISF Unit NTPC/Kayamkulam.
This shows that the force member was willfully disobeying
the orders of his superior officers (PW-03/Exh-06).
g) The force member, while posted at CISF Unit
NTPC/Kayamkulam (KCCPP), refused to receive the
movement order for a Refresher Course. To avoid attending
the Refresher Course, he resorted to “medical rest” and
successfully managed to get himself admitted to the
hospital. Under Final Order No. 129 dated 28.01.2016
issued by CISF Unit NTPC/Kayamkulam, he was awarded
the punishment of a “fine of five days’ wages.” This
demonstrates the force member’s disobedience of superior
officers’ orders and his indiscipline toward his duties (PW-
03/Exh-07 /P-01 & P-02).
h) The force member, while refueling from an authorized
dealer at CISF Unit NTPC/Kayamkulam on 04-12-2017,
caused a bill to be generated for 149 liters of fuel instead
of the actual 109 liters. Under final order No. 884 dated
19.04.2018 issued by CISF Unit NTPC/Kayamkulam, a
penalty was imposed: “Reduction of pay by one stage from
₹31,100 to ₹30,200 in PB Level-3 for a period of two years,
without cumulative effect and without adversely affecting
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 27 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
his pension.” This indicates that the force member
displayed fraudulent behavior, disobedience of orders, and
indiscipline toward his duties (PW-03/Exh-08 /P-01 & P-
02).
i) The force member had tampered with the vehicle
complaint register of the MT (Motor Transport)
Department at CISF Unit NLC Neyveli. Under final order
No. 1224 dated 14.08.2018 issued by CISF Unit NLC
Neyveli, a penalty was imposed: “Withholding of one
increment for a period of one year, without cumulative
effect.” This indicates the force member’s indiscipline
toward his duties (PW-03/Exh-09).
j) To encourage the force member to change his ways and
remain disciplined, he has previously been awarded 09
(nine) minor penalties for various reasons across different
units. All these penalties have reached their final stage of
disposal, and the Charged Official has exhausted all
recourses provided by the department. The Appellate and
Revisioning Authorities also upheld these minor penalties,
and in 02 (two) cases, the minor penalties awarded to him
were even reduced. Entries for all these minor penalties
have been made in the Charged Official ‘s Service Book,
which in itself constitutes solid evidence.
Therefore, the claim made by the Charged Official –that the
incidents leading to these 09 minor penalties never occurred
and that there is no evidence for them–is completely false, as
these 09 minor penalties were a direct result of those very
incidents and have been finalized. In the 02 cases where the
penalties were revised, the force member was still awarded a
“Censure,” which is a minor penalty under Rule-37 of the CISF
Rules, 2001.
The argument of the Charged Official –that reducing his
penalty to a “Censure” proves he was not guilty–is entirely
baseless. Only the gravity of the minor penalty was reduced;
the penalty was not quashed or set aside entirely. This means
the Appellate/Revisioning Authority deemed the previously
awarded penalties disproportionate to the severity of the
misconduct in those 02 cases and thus converted them from
“pay reduction” to “censure.” This in no way implies that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 28 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
force member was innocent in those cases.
It is noteworthy that these penalties were not only
awarded during his tenure as Constable/Driver but also when
he was a Constable/Cook. This demonstrates that despite
numerous minor penalties, the force member never attempted to
improve his professional conduct and consistently maintained
an irresponsible and undisciplined professional attitude,
which does not behoove a loyal and dedicated member of a
prestigious and disciplined Central Armed Police Force.”
39. The Inquiry Officer holds all the charges as proved. We reproduce
English translation of the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer as filed
by the respondent as under: –
“Upon examining the witnesses, statements, and documents, it
has come to light that the accused, No. 001710016
Constable/Driver Nand Kishore Singh, reported to the HQ Coy,
CISF Unit NLC Neyveli on May 10, 2018, following his
transfer from the CISF Unit CCPP Kayamkulam. In his
previous unit (CCPP Kayamkulam), he had obtained
permission to reside in government accommodation for one
year starting from March 30, 2017, based on the court
judgment in order number WP(C) 9764 of 2017. Subsequently,
the Force granted the member permission to occupy the said
quarter for an additional three months, until July 30, 2018.
Following the expiry of the extended period, the Force member
was required to vacate the government accommodation (Qtr
No. A-10) on July 31, 2018. However, the member failed to
vacate the premises and continued to reside in the said
government accommodation unauthorizedly from July 31,
2018, to October 12, 2020. The Force member failed to comply
with both the orders issued by the Court and the orders issued
by the Department. Therefore, Article of Charge-I, framed by
the Senior Commandant, CISF Unit NLC Neyveli via Office
Order No. V-15014/CISF/NLC/Disc/Maj-(09)/NKS/2020-
8683 dated 15.12.2020, stands fully proved.
Based on the documents and records examined, it has come to
light that the charged Force member submitted numerous
applications to senior officers regarding the retention ofSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 29 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
government accommodation at his previous unit for various
reasons. Senior officers repeatedly expressed regret regarding
his requests for the retention of government accommodation at
his previous unit, CCHP Kudankulam. In the aforementioned
matter, the Force member was counseled several times in the
grievance cell by the DIG, ASG Unit NLC Neyveli, the Senior
Commandant, and the Deputy Commandant/HQ NLC Neyveli.
This unit issued eight letters to the Force member to vacate
the government accommodation at the previous unit; however,
the Force member never complied with the orders to vacate
the accommodation. By defying the issued orders and
engaging in unnecessary correspondence, he wasted the time
and resources of senior officials. Under GOI, DoPT OM dated
19.04.2010 “It has been observed that some officials have
adopted the practice of repeatedly sending representations on
the same issue, due to which the same issue has to be
examined again and again, causing hindrance in considering
other important and time-bound matters. This Department has
considered the matter. It needs to be emphasized that
government employees should avoid submitting repeated and
multiple representations on the same issue. A second
representation on the same issue will only be examined if it
contains any new points regarding consequences or facts
related to the issue. It has been decided that when a
representation has already been considered, any more than
two representations on the same issue will henceforth be
ignored. A government employee may submit a representation
to a higher authority than the lowest competent authority only
when he can prove that the points or requests mentioned
therein were not fully and properly considered by his
immediate superior, the Head of the Office concerned, or such
other authority at the lowest level competent to deal with the
matter. Government employees should avoid addressing higher
authorities prematurely.” This proves that the charged Force
member deliberately wasted the time and resources of senior
officers by engaging in unnecessary repeated correspondence,
which is a violation of government orders. Therefore, Charge
No. II, leveled by the Senior Commandant, ASG Unit NLC
Neyveli, vide Office Order No. V-15014/CISF/NLC/Disc/Maj-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 30 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
(09)/NKS/2020-8683 dated 15.12.2020, stands fully proven.
Upon reviewing the statements and documents, it has come to
light that the Charged Official repeatedly used improper and
undesirable language in his applications. In the application
dated May 23, 2020, addressed to the DIG, NLC Neyveli,
words such as “fake” and “baseless fraud” were used. In the
application dated August 19, 2020, addressed to the same
authority, terms like “harassment” and “blackmailing” were
used. In the application dated August 27, 2020, words such as
“illegal orders,” “blackmailing,” “torture,” and “unbearable
atrocities” were used. During the inquiry, the individual was
unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for these
improper terms. He pleaded in his defense that the applications
were written by a local Tamil translator and typist at the time,
and perhaps that is how these English words were included.
This plea is unacceptable, as these words were used repeatedly
across multiple applications. Such conduct reflects
irresponsible behavior for a member of a disciplined force.
Furthermore, the fact that the accused used these terms
consistently in various correspondences suggests they were
used with full seriousness and deliberate intent. The improper
and undesirable words used by the force member in his
applications are listed below:-
a) On May 23, 2020, in his application addressed to the DIG,
NLC Neyveli, he used words such as “FAKE AND
BASELESS.” (PW-2/Exh-04/P-11 & P-11A) & (DEF./Exh-94/
P-01 to 02)
b) On August 27, 2020 (PW-2/Exh-04/P-16) and August 19,
2020 (DEF./Exh-101), in his application addressed to the
DIG, NLC Neyveli, he used words such as “HARASSMENT
AND BLACKMAILING.”
c) On September 07, 2020 and August 27, 2020, in his
application addressed to the DIG, NLC Neyveli, he used terms
such as “Illegal Order, Blackmailing, Torture, and Unbearable
Atrocities.” (PW-2/Exh-04/P-17 & P-17A) and (DEF./Exh-102)
d) On September 30, 2019, he submitted an application to the
IG/SS HQrs. In that application, he used words like “robbery
in his salary” by Assistant Commandant, KCCPP
Kayamkulam, Shri Vinodan T. (PW-02/Exh-04/P-08 & 8A)Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 31 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
During the preliminary inquiry, the force member himself
described the Hindi translation and meanings of certain
words in his question-and-answer session. Furthermore, during
the reexamination of Prosecution Witness-1 on May 11, 2021,
he himself asked in Question No. 12: “Sir, which words are
inappropriate and which are appropriate? Do you have a
certified list of appropriate/inappropriate words or not?” This
question makes it clear that the Charged Official used these
words with full consciousness and discretion, and according to
his own judgment, these words were not inappropriate. The
force member repeatedly demanded a certified list of
inappropriate words. Prior to the departmental inquiry, the
force member had conducted all correspondence in English;
therefore, his argument–that these inappropriate words were
merely errors resulting from language translation–is baseless,
as no other literal errors were observed in his English
correspondence apart from these specific words. He
repeatedly used several inappropriate and undignified words in
different contexts against highranking officials/positions
without any facts or evidence. As a member of a disciplined
force, this demonstrates irresponsible behavior and
indiscipline. His application dated August 27, 2020, stated
that if any accident or death due to infection occurred to his
family during travel, the Unit Authority would be held
responsible. This reflects a person’s illegal blackmailing
attitude and a tendency to threaten the department in his own
favor. It also shows the individual’s inclination to defy the
rules, acts, and lawful orders of the higher authority.
Therefore, Charge No. III, framed by the Office of the Senior
Commandant, CISF Unit NLC Neyveli via Order No. V-
15014/CISF/NLC/Disc/Maj-(09)/NKS/2020-8683 dated
December 15, 2020, stands fully proven.
The Charged Official had personally submitted a written
application on 29.07.2020 for Block 22, 105-A, Type-I
(Ground Floor). The objections raised by him later should have
been considered before applying, as a Quarter Allotment
Meeting is held every month in this unit where
accommodations are allotted randomly based on eligibility.
However, when a force member submits a written application
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 32 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
for a specific quarter, that particular quarter is allotted to
them as far as possible. Such applications for specific quarters
are made by the force member only after their own personal
inspection and understanding. Therefore, when the Charged
Official had specifically requested this accommodation through
a written application, and it was subsequently allotted to him,
the Charged Official himself submitted a written application
to surrender House No. 105-A on 17.09.2020. This proves that
the Charged Official had deliberately applied for House No.
105-A in writing. Following this, the force member was
allotted House No. 139-A during the monthly Quarter
Allotment Meeting. He should not have raised objections
regarding the subsequently allotted House No. 139-A. This
suggests that the Charged Official deliberately requested a
house through a written application so that, after allotment,
he could submit another application to surrender it and raise
objections regarding House No. 139-A (allotted in the monthly
meeting) to further delay the shifting process. Subsequently,
upon examining the statements and documents, it has come to
light that on 22.10.2020, the Charged Official obtained
Transit Accommodation No. 206-B (Hostel Type, Block-22)
for one month by submitting a written application citing his
wife’s medical treatment. The force member was supposed to
vacate the said transit accommodation by 21.11.2020. In the
interim, Quarter No. 139-A, Type-I, Block-22 was allotted to
him on 24.11.2020. Despite being allotted government family
accommodation, the force member did not vacate the transit
accommodation and continued to occupy it unauthorizedly. On
21.11.2020, the force member submitted an application
requesting the allotment of Transit Accommodation No. 206-B
(Hostel Type, Block-22) and appeared for an interview before
the Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit NLC Neyveli. The
Deputy Commandant informed the force member that the said
transit accommodation is a Ladies Barrack and he cannot
reside there with his family. He was ordered to vacate the
accommodation immediately, failing which disciplinary action
would be initiated against him. The force member finally
vacated the said accommodation on 27.12.2020. This
behavior demonstrates a tendency to defy the rules,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 33 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
regulations, and lawful orders of higher authorities. Therefore,
Charge No. IV, framed vide Senior Commandant CISF Unit
NLC Neyveli Office Order No. V-15014/CISF/NLC/Disc/Maj-
(09)/NKS/2020-8683 dated 15.12.2020, stands fully proved.
The charged force member was previously awarded 09 minor
penalties across various units for different reasons, aimed at
encouraging him to reform his ways and maintain discipline.
All 09 minor penalties have reached their final stage of
disposal, and the charged member has exhausted all legal
recourses provided by the department. The appellate and
Revisioning Authorities also upheld these minor penalties,
though in 02 specific cases, the quantum of punishment was
reduced. All these minor penalties have been duly recorded in
the charged member’s Service Book, which in itself serves as
concrete evidence. Therefore, the charged member’s claim-that
the incidents leading to these 09 minor penalties never
occurred or lack evidence – is entirely baseless. These penalties
were the direct consequence of those proven incidents and have
attained finality, Regarding the 02 cases where the penalties
were revised, the member was awarded “Censure,” which
remains a minor penalty under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules,
2001. The charged member’s argument that the reduction of his
penalty to a “Censure” implies he was not guilty is completely
unfounded. Only the gravity of the penalty was mitigated; the
penalty itself was not quashed. This indicates that the
Appellate/Revisioning Authority found the initial penalties
disproportionate to the severity of the misconduct and thus
commuted them from a fine (pay reduction) to a Censure. This
by no means implies that the charged member was innocent in
those two instances. It is noteworthy that these penalties were
not only awarded during his tenure as Constable/Driver but
also while he served as Constable/Cook. This demonstrates that
despite numerous minor penalties, the charged member made
no effort to improve his professional conduct. Instead, he
consistently maintained an irresponsible and undisciplined
professional attitude which is unbecoming of a loyal and
dedicated member of a prestigious and disciplined Central
Armed Police Force. Consequently, Article of Charge No. V, as
leveled by the Office of the Senior Commandant, CISF Unit
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 34 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
NLC Neyveli vide Order No. V-15014/ CISF/ NLC/ Disc/ Maj-
(09)/ NKS/ 2020-8683 dated 15.12.2020 stands fully proved.”
40. The English translated order of the Disciplinary Authority dated
03.11.2021 would reveal the following: –
“Force No. 001710016 Constable/ Driver, Nand Kishore
Singh, CISF Unit NLC Neyveli, referred to herein as the
accused force member, under Rule-36 of CISF Rules 2001 vide
Memorandum No. S.Vi-15014/CISF/NLC/ADMN/MAJOR-
09/NKS/2020/8683 -dated 15.12.2020 of Senior Commandant,
CISF Unit Naveli. A memorandum was made for the following
allegations under:-
ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I
CISF No.001710016 Cons/ Dvr. Nand Kishor Singh of Hqrs.
Coy.. CISF Unit NLC Neyveli reported at CISF Unit NLC
Neyveli on regular posting from CISF Unit NTPC Kayamkulam
on 10.05.2018. While posted at CISF Unit NTPC Kayamkulam,
he was allotted with Qtr. No. A-10, NTPC Kayamkulam. On
transfer, he was permitted to retain his family accommodation
Qtr. No.A-10, NTPC, Kayamkulam at his previous unit for a
period of 03 months i.e. upto 30.07.2018. After completion of
retention period, he did not vacate the said Govt. Family
accommodation despite specific orders issued in this regard by
the Competent Authority. Repeated directions were given to
him to vacate the quarters by the Competent Authority. He
finally vacated the Quarters on 12.10.2020. Thus he disobeyed
the lawful orders of the Superior Authority which amounts to
grave act of indiscipline, gross misconduct act of an enrolled
member of a Central Armed Police Force of the Union i.e.
CISF. Hence the charge.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE-II
CISF No.001710016 Const/ Dvr Nand Kishor Singh of Hqrs
Coy., CISF Unit, NLC Neyveli has requested for retention of
family Quarters No.A-10 which was occupied by him from the
year 2012 at his previous unit i.e. CISF Unit NTPC
Kayamkulam and consideration of the case on merit, the
competent authority has permitted to retain the family
accommodation upto 30.07.2018. instead of obeying the ordersSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 35 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
to vacate the Quarter No.A-10, retained by him at CISF Unit
NTPC Kayamkulam w.e.f. 31.07.2018, he engaged his seniors
and Higher Formations in repeated and avoidable
communication. Thus, he engaged the Higher Formation/ Sr.
Officers/ Unit Administration focusing on a single individual,
thereby wasting the valuable time and resources of the
Organization. This act amount to grave act of indiscipline and
unbecoming act of an enrolled member of a Central Armed
Police Force of the Union i.e. CISF. Hence the charge.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE-III
CISF No.001710016 Const./ Dvr. Nand Kishor Singh of Hqrs.
Coy., CISF Unit NLC Neyveli was found to have used
inappropriate and threatening words in his various
applications addressed to the Seniors and Higher Formations
exhibiting disregards and disrespect to his Superior in the
various applications addressed to the Seniors concerning
extension of Quarters at his previous Unit i.e. CISF Unit NTPC
Kayamkulam and other issues. Thus, he transgressed all limits
of acceptable and disciplined behaviour and rendered himself
unbecoming of member of the Force. Hence the charge.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE-IV
CISF No.001710016 Const./ Dvr. Nand Kishor Singh of Hqrs.
Coy., CISF Unit NLC Neyveli has wilfully refused to occupy
Qtr. No.l 05-A, Type-I at Block-22, Neyveli Township, despite
being allotted with the Quarter at ground floor as per his
choice. Further, on his request, he was allotted Qtr. No.206/ B,
Hostel Type at Block-22 on temporary basis for a period of one
month from 22.10.2020. Whereas, after completion of permitted
time and even after allotment of regular Family
accommodation, he has not vacated Qtr. No. 206/B, Hostel
Type at Block -22 and willfully occupied the same beyond
permissible period and refused to occupy the allotted Quarter
No. l39-A, at Block-22. Thus, he disobeyed the order of
Superior Authority. This act amount to grave act of
indiscipline, gross misconduct and unbecoming act of an
enrolled member of a Central Armed Police Force of the Union
i.e. CISF. Hence the charge.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE-V
CISF No.001710016 Const./ Dvr. Nand Kishor Singh of Hqrs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 36 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
Coy., CISF Unit NLC Neyveli has been awarded with 09 (Nine)
minor penalties, Const/ Dvr. Nand Kishor Singh has not
mended his ways and remained indisciplined. Hence the
charge.
02. A copy of the above memorandum was received by the
accused force member on date 17.12.2020 and dated
09.01.2021 (Def/Exh-133/P-l to 4) by the Deputy Inspector
General, CISF unit NLC Neyveli submitted an application
addressed to Deputy Inspector General NLC Naveli in which it
sought documents for defense in relation to the allegations
leveled against him. As a result, the documents related to the
accused force member were given under office memorandum
number (299) dated 21.01.2021 (Def/Exh-133/P-l to 4). The
accused force member again addressed the Deputy Inspector
General CISF Unit NLC Neyveli on 22.01.2021 (Def./ Exh-135)
and submitted an application to obtain the remaining
documents for his own defence. Which was given to the accused
force member under office memorandum No.597 dated
28.01.2021 (Def./ Exh-135). The accused force member
submitted a written representation/ reply to the charge
memorandum dated 23.01.2021 in which the force member has
denied the allegations leveled against him. Therefore, the
Disciplinary Officer decided to conduct a departmental inquiry
and submitted the matter to Shri Suraj Rai Assistant
Commandant/Work CISF Unit NLC Nayveli for departmental
inquiry under letter No.V-15014/CISF/NLC/Disc/Maj-
(09)/NKS/2021/599 dated 28.01.2023 and to Inspector/ Work,
K.V.A. Sridhar vide letter No.V-15014/CISF/NLC/Disc/Maj-
(09)/NKS/2021/814 dated 05.02.2021 appointed as a
presenting officer.
03. Taking forward the departmental investigation, the
investigating officer issued investigation notice vide letter
No.(138) dated 08.02.2021 according to which the preliminary
hearing (1st plea) was scheduled on 15.02.2021 in the Sector
Commander /. B-Sector Office TPS-2 CISF Unit NLC Neyveli
done in the presence of. During the preliminary hearing, the
accused force member admitted that he had received the
memorandum No.(8683) dated 15.12.2020 and its annexures
and he understood all the allegations leveled against him.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 37 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
During the first hearing, the accused force member refuted the
allegations leveled against him and refused to take help as a
defense assistant. Along with this, the accused force member
said that he has no objection to the investigating officer. The
Inquiry Officer conducted the departmental inquiry process on
day-to-day basis from date 15.02.2021 to date 20.09.2021 as
per the provisions prescribed in Rule-36 of CISF Rules 2001.
During the departmental investigation, the following total 04
prosecution witnesses were examined, and exhibits were
presented by those prosecution witnesses-
Sl. CISF No. Rank Name Witnesses DOE
No.
1. 904670059 Insp/Exe V Satish PW-I 24.02.2021
2. 001340109 L/Insp/Exe Surekha PW-II 26.02.2021
3. 854506266 Insp/Min K Selvaraj PW-III 26.02.2021
4. 944501269 Asi/Min T K Mahato PW-IV 22.02.2021
Following are the statements of the prosecution recorded
during the departmental investigation.
CISF No. 904670059 Inspector/ Work V Satish (PW-1) CISF
Unit NLC Neyveli (through video conference) in relation to
Allegation Paragraph-2, 3 and 4 has stated in his statement
that he has been working on the reserved Inspector/ Work from
the month of July 2019 are performing their duties, and along
with this, the in-charge is also looking after the work of MT
section. The accused force member expressed his displeasure
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 38 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
towards the collection of posting penalty fare and disciplinary
action taken against him and addressed the above mentioned
demands from his previous unit to different higher authorities
and informed that the applications of the accused force member
will be forwarded has been done. Some applicants who sent
through e-grievance and getting a copy of the same canceled by
informing the Deputy Inspector General/ Senior Commander of
this unit, Again getting a temporary accommodation allotted to
him as soon as possible for the treatment of his wife, insisting
on permanent allotment of the unit’s temporary accommodation
instead of vacating the said accommodation at the stipulated
time, and on the basis of seniority, the allotted accommodation
as per rules. Putting a condition of getting the repairs done by
the department instead of accepting it shows its indiscipline
and unnecessarily making the department busy with itself.
15. The accused force member had been punished with 09
minor punishments during his previous service period, despite
that the accused force member did not make any change in his
attitude.
This type of action by the accused force member will not be
tolerated at all in the Central Armed Police Forces. Such
charged Force member is not fit to continue in a disciplinary
force. His continuing in service may have an adverse effect on
other members. Therefore, I completely agree with the findings
of the investigating officer. The accused force member deserves
severe punishment.
16. On the basis of the above discussion, I, the
undersigned/Disciplinary Officer, in exercise of the powers
specified under Schedule-1 read with Rule-34 (ii) of Rule-32 of
CISF Rules 2001 (amended in 2013), Force No. 001710016
Constable/Driver, I pass the order of punishment of removal
from service to Nand Kishore Singh Headquarters CISF Unit
NLC Neyveli with immediate effect.
17. Force member No. 001710016 Constable/ Driver Nand
Kishore Singh CISF NLC Neyveli is informed that if he wishes,
he can submit an appeal against this order to the Appellate
Officer, Deputy Inspector General CISF Unit NLC Neyveli
within 30 days of receipt of the order.
18. A copy of this order is provided free of cost to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 39 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
Constable/Driver Nand Kishore Singh CISF Unit NLC Neyveli,
Force member No. 001710016. The force member is also
directed to ensure acknowledgment of this order.”
41. The order of the Disciplinary Authority agrees with the conclusion
drawn by the Inquiry Officer. It also takes into consideration that the
petitioner has been punished with nine minor punishments during his
previous service period. Still, the petitioner did not make any change in his
attitude. It is stated that this type of conduct of the petitioner cannot be
tolerated in the CAPF and as such, he is unfit to continue in a disciplined
force. The appeal which has been filed by the petitioner was also rejected
vide order dated 05.01.2022 by the Appellate Authority by stating in
paragraph no.6 as under:-
“06. The entire departmental inquiry has been completed under
Rule 36 of CISF Rules 2001 and the applicant has been given
full opportunity to present his defense of which he has taken full
advantage. The allegations made against the appellant have
been clearly proved in the departmental investigation. Keeping
in view the above discussion, the undersigned/Appellate
Authority is of the considered opinion that the appellant has
been treated judiciously. In these circumstances, the order of
penalty of REMOVAL FROM SERVICE issued by the
Disciplinary Officer on the Appellant under the final order
No.V-15014/ CISF/ NLC (N) MAJ-09/ NKS/ 2020/ 21-5754
dated 03.11.2021, I the undersigned/Appellate Authority agree.
Therefore, using the powers vested under Rule 52 (2) C (i) of
CISF Rules 2021, 1 reject the appeal petition dated
15.11.2021.”
42. Similar is the position, in respect of revision petition filed before the
Inspector General, Southern Sector who vide order dated 20.05.2022, has in
paragraph no. 9, stated as under: –
“9. Moreover, as requested by the petitioner, he was called for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 40 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
personal appearance before the undersigned vide SS Hars
letter No. (5309) dated 19.04.2022. Accordingly, he has
appeared before the undersigned on 21.04.2022 at SS HQrs
Chennal and pleaded his innocence. The explanation was not
convincing and in my opinion his representation does not hold
any substantive reason to be considered. Being found his
representation in written and oral untenable, I do not find any
cogent reason, whatsoever, to Interfere with the orders passed
by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities and therefore, in
exercise of powers conferred upon me under Rule-54 of CISF
Rules, 2001, I hereby REJECT the revision petition dated
07.02.2022 submitted by No.001710016 Ex-Constable (DVR)
Nand Kishor Singh formerly of CISF Unit NLC Neyveli, being
devoid of any merit.”
43. Insofar as, the submission of the petitioner that he is an innocent
person and the allegations made are false, inasmuch as, the same have been
alleged overlooking the medical condition of his wife as she was suffering
from Hepatitis B, Hypertension and Diabetes and she was undertaking
Ayurvedic treatment at Kayamkulam concerned, the same does not impress
us in view of the findings of the respondent/Authorities.
44. The submission is that the department having recovered an amount of
Rs.1,09,200 as penal rent for a period of 30.07.2018 to 12.10.2020, no
further proceedings could have been initiated.
45. In substance, his plea is that he has not violated any rule. His plea was
also that the High Court of Kerala had directed as the petitioner’s wife is
undergoing treatment, the department shall see that the quarter allotted to the
petitioner is kept available to his family for a period of one year. However,
according to him the department never recognised this fact. He did concede
to the fact that the High Court disposed of the petition with a direction that
the respondents to decide his representation as per law. According to him,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 41 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
the respondents could not have rejected his request for retention, as the
request of the petitioner for retention was for genuine reason. That apart, he
also pleaded education of the children as a ground to retain the
accommodation at Kayamkulam. It was his submission that the request for
allotment of Qtr. 206-B, Hostel Type at Block-22 which was designated as
ladies barrack by the department, was because the Qtr No. 139-A block No.
22 was in in such a state that no normal person with family of two young
children could occupy it. He had highlighted the facilities connected with
Qtr No. 139-A block No. 22, were not conducive to be used by his family
members. Unfortunately, no heed was paid to the individual request and
hence that charge that he has not vacated the Qtr No. 206-B, Hostel type at
block No-22 which is designated as ladies barrack by the department is
unsustainable. He pleads that the action of the respondents was not only
wrong but also unjust and arbitrary.
46. Even on Charge V, where a reference has been made to the nine
minor penalties imposed on the petitioner in the past, it was his stand that
such an aspect cannot be subject matter of charge. According to him, none
of the penalties imposed were for grave charges.
47. We are not impressed by the submission made by the petitioner.
Though, the charges which have been framed vide the impugned chargesheet
dated 15.12.2020 are relatable to not vacating the quarter allotted by the
respondents, unlike serious charge of corruption which may entail the
penalty of removal, what is important in this case is that a specific charge
has been made in the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner with regard to
nine penalties imposed on him in the past.
48. The charges on which the nine penalties have been imposed are the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 42 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
following:-
I. On 20.04.2001, the petitioner was awarded censure on account of not
cooking fish properly, which caused food wastage.
II. He was awarded penalty of two days pay fine for disregarding the
order of Mess Commander on 19.03.2003 and 20.03.2003.
III. On 31.07.2003, he was awarded the penalty of three days pay fine on
account of 14 days over staying leave w.e.f., 13.06.2003 to
26.06.2003.
IV. Vide order dated 18.07.2012, he was awarded the penalty of censure
for misusing of Government vehicle without knowledge of Senior
Officers.
V. Vide order dated 18.03.2014, he was awarded the penalty of censure
for remaining absent from night shift duty on 21.05.2013 without
prior intimation to the Competent Authority and for overstaying of
medical rest w.e.f., 01.06.2013 to 03.06.2013.
VI. Vide order dated 19.01.2016, he was awarded five days pay fine for
refusing to receive official communication.
VII. Vide order dated 28.01.2016, he was awarded five days pay fine for
refusing to receive movement order for proceeding to refresher course
and resorting to medical rest to avoid the course intentionally and
managed to admit himself in the Hospital.
VIII. Vide order dated 19.04.2018, he was awarded with the penalty of
Reduction of pay by one stage from Rs.31,100/- to 30,200/- in PB
Level-3 for a period of two years without cumulative effect and not
adversely affecting his pension on account of allegedly producing
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 43 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
fraudulent bill(s) for 149 liters fuel instead of 109 liters on 04.12.2017
for filling diesel from authorised dealers.
IX. Vide order dated 14.08.2020, he was awarded the penalty of
withholding of one increment for a period of one year without
cumulative effect for alleging tampering made in vehicle complaint
register held at MT Section, CISF Unit, NLC Neyveli.
49. The nine minor penalties imposed which have not been set aside,
cumulatively reveals the conduct of the petitioner, as an employee of CISF.
They also indicate that despite the earlier penalties which were imposed
between 2001-2018, he had not mended his ways or his conduct. Again
despite directions to vacate the quarter, he did not vacate the quarters, at
Kayamkulam and at Neyveli. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner
was transferred from Kayamkulam to Neyveli and on, his transfer, he was
required to vacate the quarter to enable the next incumbent eligible for
allotment of the quarter is alloted.
50. Similar is the position at Neyveli. The ground of medical illness of
his wife of Hepatitis B, Hypertension and Diabetes, cannot be a ground to
hold on to the quarter at Kayamkulam, as such facilities would be available
even at NTPC project at Neyveli and to say that she was undergoing
Ayurvedic treatment at Kayakulam, and would not vacate the premises is
totally unjustifiable. Even the education of the children cannot be a ground
to retain the quarter.
51. We are of the view, when nine penalties were imposed on the
petitioner for his past misconducts which remained unchallenged, the
grounds urged by the petitioner challenging the orders of Disciplinary
Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, cannot be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 44 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
faulted. The law in this regard is well settled by the Supreme Court on which
Ms. Gaur was relied upon in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation (supra) wherein, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
“24. In any event, in the instant cases, it has not been found
that the respondent was entitled, before his services were
terminated, to receive compensation in terms of the provisions
of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was not a case
where the services of the respondent could have been
terminated only in compliance with the provisions of Section
25-F and on the appellant’s failure to do so he had derived a
right to continue in service. Furthermore, in Govindaraju
[(1986) 3 SCC 273 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 520] there was no case
of proved misconduct made out against the workman unlike the
present cases. In this case, the appellant’s contention that
before imposing the punishments upon the respondent,
opportunities of hearing had been granted to the workman
concerned is not denied or disputed. Imposition of such
punishment upon the workmen had not been questioned by
them. They accepted the same and, thus, the same attained
finality. The history sheets of the respondents clearly show that
opportunities after opportunities had been given to them to
improve themselves but they did not avail the same. It was in
that situation if the services of the respondents were found not
satisfactory and they were discontinued in service, no fault can
be found with the action of the appellant herein.
52. The petitioner has relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in
the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others 1992
Supp (1) 335 which has no applicability in the case at hand since the said
case pertains to the facts concerning quashing of criminal proceedings.
Similar is the position with respect to the judgments in the cases of Lalita
Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2014) 2 SCC 1,
Sunder Babu and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 14 SCC 244,
Dinesh Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2024 INSC 32 and Madhu
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 45 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551 which have been relied
upon to reiterate the principles stated in Bhajan Lal (supra). The same have
no applicability in the case at hand which pertains to departmental inquiry.
53. Reliance has also been placed by him on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4
SCC 307 to argue that once the foundation of the application under Order
XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is found to be
unsubstantiated or non-maintainable, the superstructure falls down. This
judgment needless to state has no applicability in the present set of facts. He
also relied on the judgment in the case of Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing
Director, U. P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors. 2026 INSC 305 to
argue that if the department had not produced any witnesses when the
charges were denied by the appellant therein, the inquiry would stand
vitiated. We note that in the present case the petitioner was granted
sufficient opportunities to cross examine the department’s witnesses but he
declined to do so. Hence, this judgment too does not aid the petitioner’s
case. Additionally, he placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Union
of India v. Sukhwinder Singh 2025:PHHC:129426-DB as upheld by the
Supreme Court vide order dated 01.04.2026 in Union of India & Anr. v.
Sukhwinder Singh SLP (Civil) Diary No. 11301/2026, however noting the
facts being dissimilar to the case at hand, we must state the judgment too
does not help the case of the petitioner.
54. Having said that we note in the case of Tulsi Ram Patel (supra) the
Supreme Court has held that removal from service in accordance with the
Rules is not violation of the Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 46 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
55. We are of the view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
totally devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
56. We order accordingly. No cost.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JULY 03, 2026/rk
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP WP(C) No.16663/2023 Page 47 of 47
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.07.2026
14:34:31
