CISF Constable Who Posted Against Army on Facebook Loses Challenge to Pay Cut at Chhattisgarh HC

The High Court of Chhattisgarh refused to interfere with a one-stage pay reduction imposed on a CISF constable who uploaded offensive social media posts against the Indian Army and Para-military Forces, holding that the departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with law and the penalty was proportionate to the misconduct.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in a judgment delivered on 22 July 2026, dismissed a writ petition filed by Anupam Devnath, a Constable (GD) with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) posted at Unit B.I.O.M. Kirndul. Devnath had challenged orders passed by his departmental disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, which imposed on him a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage in Pay Matrix-3 — from Rs. 27,600 to Rs. 26,800 — for one year with cumulative effect. The penalty arose from five offensive posts he uploaded on Facebook on 23 and 24 June 2020, directed against the Indian Army and Para-military Forces. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, sitting singly, found no ground to interfere, applying the settled limits on the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 in disciplinary matters.

The Charge and the Disciplinary Proceedings

On 1 July 2020, the Commandant, CISF Unit B.I.O.M. Kirndul, issued a charge memo to Devnath. The charge stated that he had posted objectionable and disparaging comments against the Indian Army and officers of Para-military Forces on his Facebook account on 23 and 24 June 2020, in violation of standing social media guidelines and the rules governing conduct of force personnel.

Devnath filed a reply to the charge memo on 9 July 2020. The disciplinary authority then appointed an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer on 13 July 2020, and an inquiry notice followed on 16 July 2020. The prosecution examined three witnesses in the inquiry: Inspector Prashant Sudhakar (PW/1), who directly stated that the objectionable posts were uploaded by the petitioner; Inspector Roshan Kumar Verma (PW/2); and Constable Lakhvinder Singh (PW/3), both of whom supported the prosecution's case. Relevant documents were exhibited by the department on 22 July 2020, and Devnath was afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on 25 July 2020.

Devnath appeared in the inquiry on 25 and 27 July 2020. His statement was recorded. He did not examine any witness on his behalf. He told the inquiry that he had uploaded the posts “to check in on every one,” and admitted that he later deleted the posts. He also stated that he has great respect for the Armed Forces and that he is not well-versed with Hindi, his mother tongue being Bengali. The Inquiry Officer found the charge proved and submitted the Inquiry Report on 12 August 2020. The disciplinary authority concurred and, after issuing a second show-cause notice, passed the penalty order on 7 September 2020.

Devnath then preferred a departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, CISF Central Zone Headquarters, Bhilai, which was dismissed on 29 January 2021. A subsequent revision before the Inspector General, CISF Central Zone Headquarters, Bhilai was also dismissed on 16 June 2021. He thereafter filed WPS No. 6219 of 2021 before the High Court.

Arguments Before the High Court

Devnath appeared as petitioner-in-person. He submitted that the penalty was wholly excessive and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and that the Inquiry Officer and disciplinary authority ought to have taken a lenient view. He argued that he had never intentionally posted anything on social media to insult the Indian Army or Para-military Forces, and that the department had failed to lead clinching evidence to establish that the objectionable posts were uploaded by him. He also contended that he was not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing and that proper procedure was not followed during the departmental inquiry. He sought quashing of the disciplinary and appellate orders.

Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Abhishek Banjare, countered that Devnath was a member of an armed force and had uploaded five offensive posts against the Indian Army and Para-military Forces on his Facebook account on 23 and 24 June 2020. He submitted that a full-fledged departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with prescribed procedure: a charge memo was issued, Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed, the department examined its witnesses and exhibited relevant documents, and the Inquiry Report was submitted before the disciplinary authority, who concurred with it before inflicting the penalty. He argued the writ petition deserved to be dismissed.

A Procedural Issue the Court Chose to Overlook

Before addressing the merits, the court noted a procedural irregularity in the petition. While Devnath had assailed the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, he had not formally impugned the order of the revisional authority in the writ petition, though he had annexed it as Annexure P/3. Justice Pandey held that such a mistake could be ignored while hearing the writ petition on merits, since the grounds of challenge against all three orders were almost similar.

The Court's Reasoning on Scope of Review

Justice Pandey reviewed the documents placed on record and found it established that Devnath had uploaded objectionable posts against the Indian Army and Para-military Forces on his social media account on 23 and 24 June 2020. The court found that the departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with law: charge memo was issued on 1 July 2020; Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed on 13 July 2020; prosecution witnesses were examined and documents exhibited; Devnath was given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses; and his own statement was recorded. All the authorities returned a categorical finding that his conduct violated Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 and the social media guidelines issued from time to time.

On the question of the High Court's power to interfere, Justice Pandey applied the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610. The court reproduced the principles from that decision, which hold that under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not a court of first appeal in disciplinary proceedings and shall not reappreciate evidence, go into the adequacy or reliability of evidence, or interfere with conclusions where the inquiry has been conducted in accordance with law. The High Court's intervention is confined to situations where the inquiry was held by an incompetent authority, where the procedure prescribed was not followed, where the principles of natural justice were violated, where the authority was influenced by extraneous or irrelevant considerations, or where the conclusion is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at it.

Justice Pandey also applied the principle from Union of India and Others v. Datta Linga Toshatwad, (2005) 13 SCC 709, which holds that a High Court exercising power under Article 226 may interfere with a penalty in a departmental inquiry only if the order was passed by an incompetent authority, if the prescribed procedure was not followed, or if the penalty is disproportionate to the misconduct.

Against these standards, the court held that Devnath had failed to demonstrate that the penalty order was passed by an incompetent authority or that the prescribed procedure under the rules had not been followed. On proportionality, the court held that the penalty appeared appropriate given the nature of the misconduct: a serving member of a Central Armed Police Force uploading five posts on Facebook denigrating the Indian Army and Para-military Forces. There was no basis for the court to treat the punishment as disproportionate.

Outcome

The writ petition was dismissed. No order as to costs was made. All pending applications, if any, were disposed of along with the main petition.