Introduction:
In the case of Jai Bhagwan Sangwan v. Union of India & Another, the Delhi High Court has upheld the removal of a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Sub-Inspector who was dismissed from service in 2011 due to unauthorised absence from duty spanning over ten months. A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla rejected the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement, holding that a member of a uniformed service cannot be permitted to abandon their duty merely because the circumstances are personally uncomfortable or professionally challenging. The ruling is a significant reiteration of the high standards of discipline and duty expected from personnel in uniformed services, where the integrity of the force and the safety of national assets depend on individual reliability and responsiveness to official obligations. The Court noted with disapproval the petitioner’s prolonged absence without justification and his non-cooperation with the disciplinary proceedings, observing that such conduct was incompatible with the expectations from members of a disciplined force.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, Jai Bhagwan Sangwan, a Sub-Inspector in the CISF, approached the Delhi High Court seeking judicial relief against the termination order issued against him in 2011. He contended that the disciplinary proceedings culminating in his dismissal were vitiated by procedural irregularities and disproportionate punishment. It was argued that the punishment imposed upon him—dismissal from service—was excessive and did not take into account the mitigating factors surrounding his absence. The petitioner did not deny the fact of absence from duty but sought to explain it as arising from personal and mental stress, which allegedly rendered him incapable of reporting for work during the said period. He maintained that there was no wilful intention to desert the service or to defy authority, and therefore, his absence should have been viewed with leniency. Further, it was submitted that he had not been granted adequate opportunity to present his case during the inquiry proceedings and was thereby denied principles of natural justice. The petitioner prayed for reinstatement into service or at the very least, a more lenient penalty that would allow him to resume his career in public service.
Arguments of the Respondents:
On the other side, the Union of India and the CISF authorities defended the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner, asserting that the unauthorised absence was a serious breach of service discipline. It was submitted that Sangwan had absented himself without any prior permission from July 5, 2010, to May 6, 2011, and thereafter continued to remain away from duty without any acceptable explanation. The respondents highlighted that despite multiple communications and directives, the petitioner failed to rejoin or offer any credible reason for his absence. The chargesheet was duly served upon him, and a departmental inquiry was initiated in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Despite opportunities being granted, the petitioner chose not to participate in the inquiry proceedings. As a result, the inquiry officer proceeded ex parte and found the charges against him to be substantiated. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter imposed the penalty of dismissal, which was upheld upon departmental review. The respondents contended that in the realm of uniformed services, especially in a security-sensitive organization like CISF, any lapse in discipline and duty cannot be taken lightly. Absenteeism, particularly of such long duration, compromises the functioning of the force and undermines institutional accountability.
Court’s Judgment:
After evaluating the submissions of both sides, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that no interference was warranted with the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner. The bench remarked that “ups and downs in service are part of life,” and any individual who opts to serve in a uniformed force must be prepared to face such challenges with resilience and responsibility. The Court sternly noted that a uniformed officer cannot abandon their post simply because they are placed in a personally inconvenient situation. Referring to the petitioner’s absence from July 5, 2010, to May 6, 2011, the bench stated that this extended period of unauthorised absence—unaccompanied by any reasonable justification—was a serious dereliction of duty.
The Court further observed that even after May 6, 2011, the petitioner failed to rejoin service or cooperate with the departmental proceedings, and remained silent throughout the inquiry process. His complete disengagement from the proceedings, despite being aware of them, demonstrated a non-cooperative attitude inconsistent with the responsibilities of a public servant, particularly one in a disciplined, uniformed cadre. The bench held that the disciplinary authority had followed due process, served the chargesheet, and granted ample opportunity to the petitioner to respond and participate in the inquiry. Hence, the claim of procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice was unsubstantiated.
Addressing the plea of disproportionate punishment, the Court emphasized that the case did not fall within that rare class of situations where the penalty shocks judicial conscience. It reiterated the principle that courts should not lightly interfere with administrative punishments unless the decision is outrageously harsh or manifestly arbitrary. In this case, the conduct of the petitioner—both in remaining absent for over ten months and in failing to respond to the inquiry—was sufficient to justify dismissal from service. “We are of the opinion that the present case does not fall within that exalted category of cases in which the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the conscience of the Court,” the bench said. Accordingly, the Court declined to grant any relief to the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition.
The judgment underscores the judiciary’s recognition of the unique obligations that attach to uniformed services such as the CISF, where readiness, reliability, and discipline form the bedrock of institutional functioning. The ruling sends a strong message that personal discomfort or psychological strain, unless substantiated with medical or legal documentation and properly communicated, cannot serve as a valid ground for abandoning duty. It also highlights the importance of active participation in disciplinary processes, as failure to engage with such mechanisms only strengthens the inference of guilt and weakens the scope for judicial sympathy. Through this verdict, the Delhi High Court has reinforced the fundamental values of service discipline and accountability that underpin India’s security forces.