Summary and Analysis of Const. Amar Singh vs Union of India & Ors 2025 INSC 1055

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: Const. Amar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2986 of 2012
Date of Judgment: August 29, 2025
Judges: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar (author of the judgment)

2. Related Laws and Legal Provisions

While the judgment does not explicitly quote sections, it is based on the following legal principles:

• Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Act and Rules: The disciplinary proceedings were conducted under the rules governing the CISF, a central armed police force.

• Principles of Natural Justice: The court checked if the disciplinary inquiry was conducted fairly and if the principles of natural justice were followed.

• Judicial Review under Article 136 of the Constitution of India: This article gives the Supreme Court the special discretion to hear appeals against any judgment or order from any court or tribunal in India. The Court emphasized that it uses this power sparingly.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellant: Constable Amar Singh, a member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF).
  Respondents: Union of India and the CISF authorities.

• Subject Matter: Challenge against a penalty imposed on the appellant after a disciplinary inquiry.

• Final Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the constable's appeal and upheld the penalty imposed by the CISF's Appellate Authority.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

a) The Incident and Charges

On August 27, 1995, Constable Amar Singh was stationed at the Mallaram Camp. He was issued an official "out-pass" to leave the camp for two hours (10:00 AM to 12:00 noon) to visit a hospital. However, he was found approximately 12 kms away from the camp in a civilian residential colony. He was allegedly involved in an incident that led to local civilians detaining him. His superior officers had to intervene to secure his release.

Based on this, two main charges were filed against him:

1. Leaving the camp without prior permission.

2. Trespassing into the family quarters of a Mr. Jhan Mohammed and indulging in unwarranted activities, which tarnished the reputation of the CISF.

b) Disciplinary Proceedings and Penalty

• An inquiry was held. The Inquiry Officer found both charges proven.

• The Disciplinary Authority (Commandant) initially imposed a severe penalty: reducing his pay to the minimum of the pay scale for three years and withholding future increments.

• The appellant appealed this order. The Appellate Authority agreed he was guilty but found the punishment too harsh. It modified the penalty to:
  "Reduction of the appellant’s pay-scale by one stage for a period of two years" and no increment during this period.

c) High Court's Decision

The constable challenged the penalty in the Delhi High Court. The High Court made two key findings:

1. Charge 1 (Leaving without permission) was NOT proved because he did have a valid out-pass.

2. However, the core misconduct was proven. Even though he had permission to leave, he misused it by going to a colony 12 kms away instead of the hospital. His actions agitated the public, required rescue by his superiors, and brought disrepute to the force. The court found the reduced penalty of a one-stage pay reduction for two years to be fair and appropriate.

d) Supreme Court's Reasoning and Final Order

The constable then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed entirely with the High Court's analysis. Its reasoning was:

• Factual Findings: The evidence was clear. The appellant admitted he went to the colony to inquire about quarters for another constable, not to the hospital. He had no proof of a hospital visit. Most importantly, he admitted he was detained by civilians and only released after his superiors assured the public he would face departmental action.

• Gravity of Misconduct: The Court emphasized that the appellant was a member of a "disciplined force." His actions, which caused a public disturbance and required his superiors to intervene, amounted to "unwarranted activity" that damaged the force's reputation. This was a serious breach of discipline.

• No Procedural Error: The appellant did not claim that the inquiry was unfair or that the principles of natural justice were violated. The Court only looks at legal errors in such cases, not to re-examine evidence like a fresh appellate authority.

• Penalty was Appropriate: The Court found the modified penalty (one-stage pay reduction for two years) to be perfectly proportionate to the misconduct committed.

Conclusion: 

The Supreme Court refused to interfere under its special power under Article 136 of the Constitution. It dismissed the appeal, meaning the penalty ordered by the CISF's Appellate Authority stands.