CISF Sub-Inspector's Penalty Upheld in 'Missing Pen' Incident.


03 April 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a Lady Sub-Inspector (SI) in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) who sought to overturn a major penalty of "reduction of pay" for her involvement in an incident concerning a passenger's forgotten pen at Goa Airport. The Court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision, emphasizing the high standards of conduct expected from members of a disciplined force.

The petitioner, Lady SI Aarti Mathur, was appointed to the CISF in January 2018 and was posted at Goa Airport in January 2019. The incident occurred on June 12, 2019, when a passenger, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, forgot his "Silver-Colored Cross Pen" (valued at approximately Rs. 8,000/-) in a tray after a security check.

 
 

According to the disciplinary proceedings, SI Mathur picked up the pen and concealed it in Ladies' Frisking Booth No. 2, an area not covered by CCTV. When the passenger inquired about his missing pen, the SHA Inspector-in-Charge, Lady Inspector Swapnali Patil, began searching. Despite being informed of the missing pen, SI Mathur remained silent. It was only when Inspector Patil mentioned checking the CCTV footage that SI Mathur retrieved the pen from the booth and handed it over.

Following the incident, SI Mathur was suspended, and departmental proceedings were initiated under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Forces Rules, 2001, on June 17, 2019. An inquiry officer was appointed, and after a detailed inquiry, including examination and cross-examination of four witnesses and review of CCTV footage, both charges against SI Mathur were "Proved".

The Disciplinary Authority, the Deputy Inspector General (DIG), awarded SI Mathur a major penalty of "Reduction of Pay by One Stage" for a period of one year, with further directions that she would not earn increments during this period and that the reduction would postpone future increments. Her probation period was also extended by six months. Subsequent appeals to the Inspector General and Additional Directorate General were dismissed, the former due to a nine-and-a-half-month delay in filing, and the latter on merits.

SI Mathur's counsel argued that her actions were without ill motive, citing a lack of specific Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for valuable items left behind by passengers and her unawareness of the pen's value. The counsel also claimed that neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Presenting Officer questioned her as to why she did not inform her colleagues immediately, and that her act was innocent. A comparison was drawn to another incident involving SI Priyanka, who allegedly took a more valuable pen home but only received a warning letter, arguing hostile action against SI Mathur.

However, the respondents countered that SI Mathur's actions constituted serious misconduct and indiscipline, tarnishing the Force's image. They asserted that she took the pen with "mala fide intent" and concealed it, failing to report it as per standard practice. The Court, in its analysis, highlighted that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to identifying deficiencies in the decision-making process, such as unreasonableness, procedural impropriety, or gross disproportionality, rather than re-evaluating factual findings.

The High Court found that the disciplinary inquiry fully complied with natural justice principles and relevant rules. It concluded that SI Mathur's conduct was not a mere error of judgment or negligence but a failure to fulfill the duties expected of a disciplined force member who is a protector of both persons and property. The Court also distinguished SI Mathur's case from SI Priyanka's, noting that in the latter, no malafide intent was found.

Ultimately, the High Court found no merit in SI Mathur's petition, dismissing it and upholding the penalty imposed by the CISF authorities.