Punjab and Haryana High Court upholds action against CISF constable for inflammatory speech

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently upheld the departmental action taken against a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable who had delivered an inflammatory speech at a religious gathering [Gurnam Singh v. Union of India and Others]

Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed that members of a disciplined armed force are not ordinary citizens "in the context of public conduct and responsibility".

“Their role in upholding the integrity, security and unity of the nation is not only physical but also moral. With the authority and respect that the uniform commands comes a heightened obligation to conduct oneself with utmost restraint, impartiality and dignity, both in and out of uniform,” the Court added.

The Court further said that an officer addressing a gathering in a manner that could be interpreted as religiously provocative, betrays not only professional discipline but also constitutional values.

It emphasized that freedom of speech, though a fundamental right, is not absolute and carries with it reasonable restrictions, particularly when it borders on hate speech or threatens public peace.

"One who has sworn allegiance to the Constitution, chooses the pulpit of a public gathering to scatter seeds of religious animus, he tears the fabric he is duty-bound to protect and the conduct cannot be treated lightly,” it remarked further.

Gurnam Singh, the CISF constable, had challenged the disciplinary action and reduction in pay imposed on him for allegedly delivering a provocative speech during a gathering in his village while on leave.

Singh, who was then posted at CISF Unit Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, was transferred to NTPC Dadri with permission to avail ten days’ earned leave. During this period, he stayed in his native village, Rani Bhatti.

A complaint was subsequently lodged by Mukesh Kumar, the village Lambardar, alleging that on July 12, 2009, Singh delivered an inflammatory address at Sri Guru Ravi Dass Dharamshala, Rani Bhatti. Based on the complaint, the Punjab Intelligence Department forwarded a report to CISF authorities, leading to a departmental inquiry.

While the inquiry officer found Singh innocent, the disciplinary authority disagreed and imposed penalty of reducing his pay by one stage for one year. The punishment was later enhanced further.

Challenging the proceedings as well as the punishment imposed, Singh contended that the complaint was malicious and motivated by personal enmity as his family was involved in civil litigation with the complainant.

It was also argued that a secret police inquiry had cleared him of any wrongdoing. CISF, however, maintained that the action was justified, asserting that Singh’s conduct amounted to indiscipline and had led to disturbance in the area.

Taking note of the submissions, the Court at the outset noted that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited as interference is allowed only when punishment is shockingly disproportionate. 

The Court noted that CISF, being an armed force, is governed by strict codes of conduct and its members are prohibited from participating in any gathering likely to cause public disorder.

It found that proper procedure and principles of natural justice were duly followed by the competent authority while inquiring into the allegations against Singh.

It observed that absence of a criminal case would not automatically vitiate a departmental inquiry. The fact that the matter originated from a police intelligence report lends it a certain degree of credibility, the Court opined.

“In the instant case, the penalty cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct, particularly when it involved indiscipline by a member of an armed force,” the single-judge added.

The Court, thus, dismissed the petition.

“The higher the position and responsibility, the greater the standard of conduct expected. Words have power, and when they are used to divide rather than unite, especially by those in positions of authority, they become tools of discord rather than instruments of leadership,” it stressed.

Advocate Surinder Sharma represented the petitioner.

Advocate Arun Gosain represented the Union of India.

[Read Order]