Delhi HC upholds CISF constable removal: alcohol dependency plea came with no medical record
Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Amit Sharma held that a plea of mental illness under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and the Dhariwal ruling needs material, and that judicial review does not reopen the evidence in a departmental inquiry.
A CISF constable who was charged with threatening to shoot a colleague after snatching his weapon told the Delhi High Court that alcohol dependency and depression lay behind his conduct. The court found no medical report, diagnosis or treatment record on file. On 5 November 2026 it dismissed his challenge to his removal from service.
Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre wrote the judgment for a Division Bench that also included Justice Amit Sharma. The petitioner, Amit Kumar, was a Constable (GD) at CISF Unit CGBS, New Delhi, and had challenged three orders under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Six charges from the summer of 2020
The first charge dated from the night of 26 June 2020. Drunk, the constable allegedly rang a neighbour’s doorbell, and when Delhi Police officers accompanied him to the CISF gate in the early hours, he punched one. The officer’s uniform was torn in the scuffle.
The next four charges came from 29 July 2020. He allegedly reported for briefing drunk and abused the shift in-charge when told to tie his shoelaces and wear his mask. He allegedly hit the empty magazine of a Sub-Inspector’s pistol so that it fell, and threatened to destroy him.
He also allegedly threatened a colleague posted on armed guard duty, saying he would snatch his weapon and shoot him. After a hospital exam found the smell of alcohol on his breath, he did not take the COVID-19 test that the forensic lab needed for a blood sample, even by 7 August.
The sixth charge cited an earlier major punishment and a minor one for similar conduct, including misbehaving with seniors while under the influence and sleeping on duty.
Removal, appeal and revision
The force held a regular inquiry under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001. The petitioner’s counsel noted that it examined 16 prosecution witnesses and one court witness. The Enquiry Officer held all six charges proved.
On 27 October 2020 the disciplinary authority ordered removal from service, with no bar on future government employment. The Deputy Inspector General rejected his appeal on 4 January 2021, and the Inspector General rejected his revision on 25 May 2021.
Mental illness and the Dhariwal ruling
Mr P. Sureshan, for the petitioner, made three points. The findings rested on hearsay, with no independent witness. The petitioner suffered from alcohol dependency and depression arising from his wife’s infertility. And the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 protected him.
He relied on Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court held that disciplinary action against a person with a mental disability can be indirect discrimination, and that the disability need not be the sole cause of the misconduct.
For the Union, Mr Jagdish Chandra, Central Government Standing Counsel, said no evidence of illness was placed during the inquiry, appeal or revision. The petitioner’s annual medicals, he said, kept him in the SHAPE-1 category until 2017 and then in a restricted category from 29 June 2018 after a fractured radius, with no mental illness recorded.
What the court looked for
The court framed the issue as
“whether the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the petitioner or the penalty of removal from service imposed upon him suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India” (para 21)
It accepted that the rights of persons with disabilities must be considered under the statutory framework. But the record, it said, did not disclose
“any medical report, diagnosis, treatment record” (para 24)
to show alcohol dependency or any other mental illness at the relevant time.
Medical records pointed to a fracture
The fitness records showed a move from SHAPE-1 to a restricted category after a radius fracture. The court read that change as orthopaedic, and found no medical note of mental illness.
Nor had the petitioner shown that his condition impaired his ability to take part in the inquiry. No substantiated plea on this had been raised before the Enquiry Officer or the later authorities.
Dhariwal, the bench noted, protects anyone who meets the statutory definition of a person with disability, and the disability need not be the sole cause of the misconduct. But the facts must still be examined, and here the petitioner had shown nothing that would establish a breach by the authorities.
Hearsay and the limits of review
The court relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India. Judicial review examines how a decision was made, and a court does not sit in appeal over findings of fact in a disciplinary inquiry.
The petitioner had been served with the charge sheet on 7 August 2020 and filed a written statement denying the charges. He took part in the inquiry and could cross-examine witnesses.
The bare assertion that evidence was hearsay, or that no independent witness appeared, did not show perversity or a breach of natural justice. The court found no ground to disturb the findings.
A disciplined force and the penalty
On penalty, the bench set out six instances of misconduct and noted the earlier major and minor punishments. It said CISF personnel are expected to maintain a high standard of discipline and to obey lawful directions.
Under B.C. Chaturvedi, a court normally cannot substitute its own penalty unless the punishment shocks its conscience. The bench found no basis to say removal was so disproportionate, and added that another view being possible was no reason to interfere.
Order
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition on 5 November 2026 and upheld the orders of 27 October 2020, 4 January 2021 and 25 May 2021. There was no order as to costs.