IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present :- Hon’ble Justice Amrita Sinha

WPA No. 26270 of 2024

Karamveer Singh

Vs.

The Union of India & Ors.

For the writ petitioner :- Ms. Jhuma Sen, Adv.

Ms. Swastika Chatterjee, Adv.

Ms. Aasthita Dutta Majumder, Adv.

Mr. Samsul Laskar, Adv.

For the Union of India :- Mr. Swapan Kumar Nandi, Adv.

Mr. Pradyut Saha, Adv.

Ms. Shreyosi Chakraborty, Adv.

Hearing concluded on :- 18.05.2026

Judgment on :- 21.05.2026

Amrita Sinha, J.:-

1. The petitioner was serving as a constable in the Central Industrial

Security Force (CISF). A major penalty charge sheet under Rule 36 of

CISF Rules, 2001 was issued against him on 25

th

January, 2023. After

conducting a disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner was removed from

service on 4

th

May, 2023. An appeal was preferred before the appellate

authority who affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority. A petition

for revision was filed thereafter, which also stood rejected.

2. The charge against the petitioner was that he consumed liquor while on

duty and was found under the influence of liquor. Breath analyser test

2

was conducted to ascertain consumption of liquor. The same was found

positive. Consuming liquor while he was on duty has been held to be an

act of indiscipline and unbecoming of a member of the disciplined Force.

Due to such indisciplined act, he was sent back to his unit for which he

could not complete the rotational training and thus failed to perform his

duty and the responsibility assigned to him. Such act was held to be

disobedience of lawful order, dereliction of duty and unbecoming of a

disciplined member of the armed Force.

3. Further charge was that despite providing reasonable opportunity to

improve and mend himself, the petitioner developed incorrigible habit of

consuming alcohol during discharge of bona fide Government duty during

duty hours which is highly unbecoming of a disciplined member of the

armed Force. Four minor punishm ents for his indisciplined act,

negligence in duty, misconduct and disobedience of lawful order was

earlier awarded to him. All the four minor punishments were awarded in

respect of acts committed under the influence of alcohol during duty

hours.

4. The penalty of removal from service which shall not be disqualification of

future employment under the Government was imposed upon him. The

petitioner has challenged the disciplinary proceeding and the penalty

imposed upon him. He has prayed for setting aside the order passed by

the disciplinary authority, affirmed by the appellate and revising

authority.

3

5. Submission of the petitioner is that the contents of the charge

memoranda were ambiguous and specifics regarding the petitioner’s act

of indiscipline, dereliction of duty were not mentioned. It has been alleged

that there is no substantive evidence or complaint of alcohol

consumption, altercation, neglect of duty or disobedience towards any

superior officials during the training course.

6. The charge memoranda failed to specify the identities of the individuals

who were allegedly disturbed or subjected to pressure by the petitioner on

the influence of alcohol. It has been contended that apart from taking

breath analyser test, the authority ought to have conducted blood and

urine test of the petitioner to get a more conclusive finding on the level of

intoxication.

7. It has been argued that the breath test result of the petitioner did not

contain the details such as the presence of alcohol odour, gait

abnormalities, speech impairment, consciousness level or whether the

alcohol consumption was moderate or excessive.

8. It has been further argued that the charge memoranda did not clarify

whether the breath test result was final or standard assessment

conducted by the doctor. The breath analysers do not directly measure

complete alcohol contents and, as such, further analysis of alcoholism

through blood and urine samples ought to have been conducted. The

authorities failed to conduct and subject the petitioner to the divided

attention test, walk and run test or the one leg stand test.

4

9. It has been admitted that though the petitioner consumed alcohol in

small quantity but he was not intoxicated and did not exert any undue

influence on any individual.

10. It has been highlighted that none of the prosecution witnesses examined

during the disciplinary proceeding testified either in the examination-in-

chief or cross that the petitioner behaved in an intoxicated manner,

engaged in physical altercation, used abusive language or behaved in a

manner which may be taken as gross indiscipline, dereliction of duty or

unbecoming of a member of an armed Force.

11. Learned advocate for the petitioner relies on the decision passed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab

National Bank & Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 wherein the Court

held that in a disciplinary proceeding a decision must be arrived at on

some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence

Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding, but the

principles of natural justice are. Suspicion, however high it may be, can

under no circumstances be held to be substitute for legal proof.

12. According to the petitioner, the breath analyser test report relied upon by

the authority was not sufficient to arrive at a confirmed conclusion that

the petitioner acted under influence of alcohol.

13. The petitioner also relies on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani –vs-

State of Maharashtra reported in 1971(3) SCC 930 wherein the Hon’ble

5

Supreme Court held that in the absence of proper report it cannot be

inferred that the person was drunk at the time the accident occurred. No

urine test of the appellant was carried out and although the blood of the

appellant was sent for chemical analysis, no report of the analysis was

produced by the prosecution. Penalty was imposed on the conclusion of

the doctor that the appellant’s breath was smelling of alcohol, his gait was

unsteady, his speech was incoherent and his pup ils were dilated. The

Court interfered with the penalty imposed upon the person.

14. According to the petitioner, the punishment imposed upon him is highly

disproportionate. The authority ought not to have imposed capital

punishment in the absence of proper test result to determine alcoholism.

15. In support of such submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment

delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Munna Lal –vs-

Union of India & Ors. reported in (2010) 15 SCC 399 wherein the Court

held that in the absence of positive evidence, charge levelled against the

delinquent was not proved satisfactorily. The disciplinary authority

should not have imposed the penalty. The Court was pleased to interfere

with the penalty imposed.

16. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble

Division Bench of this Court in Narendra Dutta Rai –vs- Union of India

reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 8613 : (2018) 5 CHN 208 wherein the

Court held that before imposing major penalty upon an employee , the

respondent authorities ought to have conducted the necessary medical

6

test(s) to come to a definite finding that the employee was under the

influence of alcohol which resulted in his misconduct. The respondents

ought to have satisfied themselves that the employe e was in such a

mental and physical condition so as to deprive him of clearness of

intellect and control of himself which he would otherwise possess and the

said behaviour was under the influence of alcohol. In the absence of any

corroborating piece of evidence, an employee ought not to be removed

from service.

17. Learned advocate for the respondents opposes the submission and prayer

made by the petitioner. The affidavit in opposition affirmed by the senior

commandant of the CISF unit, Farakka Barrage project , Farakka has

been relied upon. It has been submitted that the petitioner is addicted to

alcohol and he has developed an incorrigible habit of consuming alcohol

during discharge of Government duties. In spite of providing reasonable

opportunities to mend himself, he showed no improvement.

18. It has been submitted that members of CISF are deployed in barrages,

ports, airports, Government buildings, VIP security, atomic energy, space

installation, power plants etc. which demands highest level of obedience

and discipline. Any disobedience of lawful order or negligence/ dereliction

of duty or refusal of duty/ order may lead to loss of lives and properties.

The petitioner cannot be entrusted with any responsibility which may

make the life and put the property of others in danger. He cannot be

trusted with any kind of sensitive duty.

7

19. It has been contended that reasonable opportunity was provided to the

petitioner to defend himself and disprove the allegations levelled against

him. There hasn’t been violation of the principle of natural justice. Proper

evidence by the breath analyser test was relied upon to conclude that the

petitioner was under the influence of alcohol. Despite clear direction of

CISF Unit at Farakka that, none should leave the unit campus without

permission of the competent authority; the petitioner, contravening the

lawful direction, went out for consuming alcohol.

20. It has been argued that being a member of the armed Force of the Union

of India engaged in highly sensitive duty, a high standard of discipline is

expected from the Force personnel. The same enhances the image of the

disciplined Force. The petitioner often indulges in the act of contempt by

displaying poor conduct. The petitioner had to be sent back to his parent

unit without completing the rotational training for which he was detailed

by CISF unit FPB, Farakka. Getting intoxicated by consuming alcohol

while on Government duty amounts to gross misconduct.

21. The respondents contend that the petitioner himself admitted that he

consumed alcohol during lunch at a dhaba. It has been argued that as

the delinquent member admitted of consuming alcohol, there was no

requirement of conducting other tests of blood and urine, as claimed by

the petitioner.

22. Respondents stress that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary

proceeding is extremely limited and the Court ought not to interfere with

8

the penalty imposed. It has been denied that the punishment is

disproportionate as alleged by the petitioner. It has been submitted that

the employer, upon perusal of all evidences, decided to remove the

petitioner from service. As there are sufficient evidences for imposing

such punishment, accordingly, there is no scope to entertain the prayer of

the petitioner.

23. It has been submitted that penalty of removal from ser vice has been

imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. The same has

been affirmed by the appellate and the revising authority. Prayer has been

made by the respondents not to interfere with the penalty imposed.

24. Learned advocate for the respondents relies on the judgment delivered by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Ors. Vs.

Const. Sunil Kumar reported in (2023) 3 SCC 622 wherein the Court

held that imposing appropriate punishment/ penalty is the prerogative of

the disciplinary authority. For interfering with the penalty/ punishment,

the same has to be strikingly disproportionate to the gravity of the

offence. According to the respondents, the penalty imposed upon the

petitioner is appropriate and just. The same ought not to be interfered

with.

25. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court on 15

th

July, 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 5525 of 2019

arising out SLP (C) 31448 of 2018 in the matter of Union of India & Ors.

–vs- Narendra Dutta Rai & Anr. wherein the Court held that no Force

9

can be run if constables are allowed to abuse their seniors, threaten them

with dire consequences in a state of over-drunkenness. It has been

submitted that the petitioner is strongly addicted towards alcohol and his

conduct is unbecoming of a member of the disciplined Force.

26. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble

Division Bench of this Court on 9

th

July, 2025 in MAT 2290 of 2024 with

IA no. CAN 1 of 2025 and IA no. CAN 2 of 2025 in the matter of Union of

India & Ors. –vs- R. Kasivelu wherein the Court was pleased to uphold

the punishment of dismissal from service by holding that the penalty

ought not to be interfered with unless the same is strikingly

disproportionate.

27. Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs.

Bhupendra Singh reported in 2024 Online SC 1908 wherein the Court

relied upon various earlier decisions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court and reiterated that reappraisal of facts and evidence in judicial

review is impermissible.

28. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Ors. vs. Subrata

Nath reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1617; 2023(1) CHN (SC) 70

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court commented on the non -desirability of

continuing a delinquent member in the armed Force by ignoring his past

conduct while imposing the penalty of dismissal from service.

10

29. Prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition.

30. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and on

perusal of the materials placed before this Court it appears that as many

as three charges were framed against the petitioner. First, the petitioner

while detailed over second batch rotational training at STC CISF unit,

FSTPP, Farakka with effect from 16

th

January, 2023 to 20

th

January,

2023 consumed alcohol and was found under the influence of alcohol

during fall-in at 15 hours on 17

th

January, 2023. His breath analyser test

was found to be positive by the doctor of NTPC, Farakka. Such act of

consuming alcohol during duty hours amounts to gross indiscipline,

dereliction of duty and unbecoming of a disciplined member of the armed

Force of the Union, like CISF.

31. Second, the petitioner was found under the influence of alcohol at 15

hours on 17

th

January, 2023 and for this indiscipline during the course of

duty, he was sent back to FBP Farakka, and thus, he did not complete

the rotational training for which he was detailed by the office and, hence

failed to perform his duty and responsibility assigned to him. Such act

was found to be gross indiscipline, disobedience of lawful order,

dereliction of duty and unbecoming of a disciplined member of an armed

Force of the Union, like CISF.

32. Third, the petitioner was awarded four minor punishments for in -

disciplined act, negligence in duty, misconduct and disobedience of lawful

order. In spite of providing reasonable opportunity to mend himself, the

11

petitioner developed incorrigible habit of consuming alcohol during

discharge of duty in the duty hours which is highly unbecoming of a

disciplined member of an armed Force of the Union, like CISF.

33. A departmental enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was given

fullest opportunity to defend himself. In the enquiry proceeding, the

petitioner admitted of consuming alcohol in small quantity. The breath

analyser test conducted upon the petitioner was found to be positive.

34. The sheet anchor of the petitioner’s submission is that apart from the

breath analyser test, no other test to prove alcoholism was conducted.

According to the petitioner, blood and urine test also should have been

conducted to prove alcoholism.

35. The other contention of the petitioner is that, assuming that the petitioner

consumed alcohol, but he did not behave in any manner which could

have been held to be unbecoming of the member of the Force. It has been

stressed that the petitioner was not intoxicated and did not disturb any

other individual. There was no compliant from any other member of the

Force against the petitioner alleging consumption of alcohol.

36. Submission has been advanced that drinking alcohol, per se, does not

amount to misconduct. If only the petitioner behaved differently,

disturbed people or acted in an unruly manner, then misconduct may

have been alleged. By mere consumption of alcohol which the petitioner

admits, the capital punishment of removal from service ought not to have

been imposed.

12

37. From the tenor of the submission made on b ehalf of the petitioner it is

evident that the fact of consuming alcohol has not been denied. On the

contrary, the same has been admitted by the petitioner at the time of

giving evidence and the same has also been admitted in the averment of

the instant writ petition.

38. Learned advocate for the petitioner has painstakingly tried to make out a

case that, as consuming alcohol during duty hours, per se, does not

constitute misconduct as per the CISF Act, 1968 and the Rules made

thereunder and even if consuming alcohol is taken as misconduct, then

the capital punishment of removal from service ought not to have been

imposed. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is submitted to be

grossly disproportionate to the offence committed.

39. The Court is not inclined to accept such submissions of the petitioner. It

is evident from the charges levelled against the petitioner that he was

detailed for rotational training at a particular project. Because of the

consumption of alcohol and being under the influence of alcohol, he could

not complete the training and had to be sent back to his parent unit.

Such act of the petitioner certainly amounts to indiscipline, disobedience

of order passed by superior officer resulting in misconduct.

40. It has been contended by the authority that members of CISF are required

to manage important government buildings and security of persons. A

member of the Force is required to remain always alert and attentive

during duty hours. While on training, all the members were specifically

13

directed not to leave their place of training. Disregarding and disobeying

the order passed by the superior officer, the petitioner left the unit and

went out to have his lunch at a dhaba where he consumed alcohol. Such

misbehaviour of the member of the disciplined armed Force cannot be

accepted and ought not to be tolerated.

41. As many as four instances are mentioned in the Article of Charges where,

due to consumption of alcohol and intoxication, minor punishment was

imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner ought to have rectified his

behaviour, but he failed to do so. In fact, it is alleged, that he got addicted

to alcohol and despite repeated opportunities granted to him, he could

not amend himself.

42. The Force consists of several members who come from various parts of

the country and they dedicate their lives for the service of the nation. The

citizens of the country are proud of the members of the disciplined armed

Force. Any member who behaves in such a manner which undermines

the high prestige of the Force, ought to be dealt with appropriately. A

member cannot be allowed or permitted to damage the values that the

Force stands for.

43. Misplaced sympathy shown to an errant member will lower the morale of

the other members of the Force. If such type of addiction is spared, then

others may follow suit leading to degeneration of the standard of the

Force which cannot be permitted under any circumstances.

14

44. The petitioner failed to appreciate that the quantity of alcohol consumed

or whether he misbehaved with anyone else doe s not matter. A CISF

personnel has to perform several responsible duties. A person under the

influence of alcohol may not be in a position to deliver up to the optimum

level. If the personnel cannot be trusted to perform a work diligently and

efficiently, then there is no point in retaining such a member in the Force.

45. This is not a case that penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner

without any evidence at all. The opinion of the doctor of NTPC, Farakka

was obtained for concluding that the petitioner was under the influence of

alcohol. His breath analyser test was found to be positive. If a delinquent

member admits of the charge levelled against him, then there is hardly

any requirement for conducting further medical test of blood and urine as

alleged by the petitioner only for detecting the quantity of alcohol

consumption. Law prescribes that, facts admitted need not be proved.

Even minute quantity of alcohol consumption is not permitted while a

member of the Force is on duty.

46. On a perusal of the charges levelled against the petitioner it does not

appear that the same are vague, ambiguous or specifics of the mis-deeds

are not mentioned. The charges appear to be absolutely clear and

understandable. The minor specifics of alcohol consumption which the

petitioner alleges to be lacking, are not required to be disclosed separately

in the charge sheet. As long as the charges are distinct and

comprehensible, the same cannot be faulted.

15

47. It is very well settled that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary

proceeding is extremely limited. The same is restricted only to ascertain

as to whether the decision-making process was proper or not and whether

there has been any procedural lapse on the part of the authority or has

there been violation of the principle of natural justice.

48. In the case at hand, it appears that the principle of natural justice has

been duly adhered. The petitioner was provided sufficient opportunities to

disprove the allegations levelled against him. Instead of controverting the

allegations, he admitted the fact of consumption of alcohol. Rest of the

charges are the consequences of such consumption of alcohol.

49. In Munna Lal (supra) the Court was not satisfied with the evidence relying

on which punishment was imposed upon the delinquent. In the instant

case, the fact of consumption of alcohol was admitted by the petitioner,

confirmed by the doctor and the breath analyser test was found to be

positive. The same implies that sufficient evidence was available on record

to bring home the charges levelled against the petitioner.

50. Moreover, the petitioner was awarded minor punishments on account of

alcoholism on four earlier occasions. So, it cannot be argued that, there

was no evidence against the petitioner for which penalty has been

imposed.

51. The Division Bench judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the matter

of Narendra Dutta Rai (supra) has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Civil Appeal No. 5525 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) No. 31448 of

16

2018 on 15

th

July, 2019, accordingly, no reliance can be placed on the

same.

52. In Roop Singh Negi (supra) the Court was of the opinion that a decision in

the disciplinary proceeding must be arrived at on some evidence, which is

legally admissible. Here, the report of the breath analyser test is a legally

admissible document and the admission of the petitioner of consuming

alcohol is enough evidence in support of the charges levelled against him.

53. In Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani (supra) the Court held that the evidence

of alcoholism was not proper. Under such circumstances, the Court was

pleased to interfere in the matter. Such is not the case here. In the

instant case, alcoholism has been proved and the fact that the petitioner

did not complete his training and had to be sent back is on record. The

same amounts to disobedience of order passed by the superior officer.

54. In Subrata Nath (supra) the Court reiterated the principle that evidence

ought not to be re-appreciated while exercising power of judicial review

under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court held that a member of

the disciplined Force was expected to discharge duty diligently. The Court

was of the opinion that desirability of continuing a delinquent member in

the armed Force is certainly questionable and the disciplinary authority

could not be expected to wear blinkers in respect of his past conduct

while imposing penalty of dismissal from service. The Court took note of

the fact that the delinquent member failed to mend his ways despite

repeated opportunities granted to him. Here also, the petitioner was

17

imposed minor penalty on four earlier occasions. As he failed to rectify

himself, he has been rightly removed from service for repetition of the

offence under the influence of alcohol.

55. In Sunil Kumar (supra) the Court was of the opinio n that imposing

appropriate punishment/ penalty is the prerogative of the disciplinary

authority. Unless the punishment imposed is strikingly disproportionate,

interference under Article 226 is not warranted. Here, it does not appear

that the punishment imposed is disproportionate, as alleged.

56. The Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 was promulgated to

provide for the constitution and regulation of an armed Force of the Union

of India for better protection and security of industrial undertakings

owned by the Central Government, certain other industrial undertakings,

employees of all such undertakings and to provide technical consultancy

services to industrial establishments in the private sector and for matters

connected therewith.

57. The very purpose of constitution of such an armed Force was for

providing security to vital industrial undertakings. After the amendment

in 2009, industries in the private sector and joint venture which have

contributed to the growth of economy were also being provided security by

members of CISF.

58. As per the provisions of the Act any supervisory officer of the Force may

remove any enrolled member of the Force whom he thinks remiss or

negligent in the discharge of his duty or unfit for the same. The aforesaid

18

implies that the Act gives ample power to a supervisory officer to take

action against an errant member if it is found that the behaviour of the

member is such that it is unbecoming of a member of the disciplined

armed Force.

59. The facts and circumstances of the instant case reveal that the authority

exercised its power judiciously and in accordance with law to arrive at a

just and reasonable conclusion that the service of the petitioner is

unbecoming of a member of the Force. It is evident that the presence of

the petitioner in the Force will be more of a liability than an asset. Such

members are simply not fit to be retained in the Force. The Court is

satisfied that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is not

disproportionate, far less strikingly disproportionate, warran ting

interference by the Court.

60. In view of the above, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant

writ petition. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

61. No costs.

62. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to

the parties or their advocates on record expeditiously on compliance of

usual legal formalities.

(Amrita Sinha, J.)