The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a CISF constable from service, ruling that his acquittal in a criminal trial did not automatically invalidate the disciplinary action taken against him. The Court observed that departmental proceedings are assessed on the principle of "preponderance of probabilities," which differs from the stricter standard of proof required in criminal cases.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a CISF constable, challenged the disciplinary authority's order dismissing him from service, along with the appellate and review orders that affirmed the punishment. The departmental action arose from an incident that took place while he was on sanctioned leave in February 2018.
According to the departmental charges, the constable allegedly consumed liquor at a public place, became involved in a violent altercation, and remained present during an incident that resulted in the death of another person. Following the incident, a criminal case was registered, and departmental proceedings were initiated separately.
The petitioner later secured an acquittal from the Sessions Court after key prosecution witnesses turned hostile. Relying on that acquittal, he argued that the disciplinary punishment could no longer survive.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
The Division Bench noted that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited and that the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence like an appellate authority unless the findings are perverse or violate principles of natural justice.
The Court observed that the departmental authorities had relied on witness statements, documentary material and the petitioner's own earlier statement recorded during the inquiry. It found no material suggesting that the statement had been obtained through coercion or undue pressure.
Rejecting the argument that the acquittal should automatically wipe out the departmental findings, the Bench said:
"The acquittal by itself does not conclude the matter."
The Court further explained that the criminal court had acquitted the petitioner because prosecution witnesses turned hostile, whereas departmental proceedings require proof only on the basis of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Bench also noted that members of disciplined forces such as the CISF are expected to maintain high standards of conduct even while on leave. It held that the departmental authorities had adopted a plausible view on the available evidence, leaving no reason for judicial interference.
Decision
Finding no illegality in the disciplinary, appellate or review orders, the Delhi High Court held that the punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate considering the nature of the misconduct found proved in the departmental inquiry.
The Court concluded that the impugned orders suffered from no infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed the writ petition along with the pending applications.
Case Details
Case Title: Pisal Sagar Vishnu v. Union of India and Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) 7264/2022
Judge: Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan
Decision Date: 1 July 2026
