Even Police Official Not Required To Do 'Moral Policing' Says SC, Upholds Dismissal Of CISF Constable

The Supreme Court has upheld the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF)'s decision to remove a constable from service after he was found guilty of demanding physical favour from a couple.

The SC order came in an appeal filed by the CISF against a Gujarat High Court order that a constable named Santosh Kumar Pandey, who was dismissed from service for misconduct, should be reinstated.

BCCL/FILE

CISF personnel sought physical favour

Pandey, who was posted in Gujarat's Vadodara city, was dismissed from service in 2001 after a colleague accused him of demanding physical favour from his fiancee.

On the intervening night of October 26 and October 27, 2001, Pandey was posted on night duty at the Greenbelt Area of the IPCL Township when he stopped a motorcycle.

Pandey intercepted the couple -another CISF constable and his fianc¨¦e who were proceeding to watch a Garba performance.

They had stopped at a corner when Pandey came forward and questioned them.

He allegedly asked his colleague if he "could spend some time" with his fianc¨¦e.

Unsplash

Settles for a watch instead

When the colleague protested, Pandey demanded something in return and took the other constable's wristwatch.

The matter was reported to the authorities by the other constable the next day and even though Pandey tried to settle the case by returning the watch, it was too late.

Probe and dismissal from service

The CISF, which launched a probe into the complaint, recorded the statements of the complainant and his fianc¨¦e and concluded that his behaviour was misconduct and terminated his service.

Pandey challenged the CISF's order in the Gujarat High Court, which, in December 2014, ruled that he should be reinstated in service with 50 per cent back wages from the date of his removal.

Even police should not do moral policing

The CISF challenged the HC order in the SC and the bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice JK Maheshwari said that, in its opinion, the reasoning given by the High Court is faulty on both facts and law.

BCCL

"On the question of proportionality of punishment, we have to observe that the facts in the present case are startling and distressing. Respondent No. 1- Santosh Kumar Pandey is not a police officer, and even police officers are not required to do moral policing, ask for physical favour or material goods," it said.

It said that given the factual and legal position, they accept the appeal filed by the CISF and set aside the impugned judgment of the Gujarat High Court.

The bench said it takes reservations regarding the reasoning given in paragraphs of the impugned judgment as it fails to take notice and adequately apply the law of judicial review.

For more on news and current affairs from around the world please visit Indiatimes News.