SC upholds removal of SSB constable from service for indisciplined conduct

The Supreme Court has upheld the removal of an SSB head constable from service for entering the women's barrack of a battalion in the middle of the night in April 2013, saying such an indisciplined conduct cannot be tolerated.

A Summary Force Court (SFC) had initially ordered the dismissal of head constable Anil Kumar Upadhyay on April 29, 2013. Subsequently, it was converted to ''removal from service'' on June 21, 2013, by the Commandant of the Battalion.

Upholding the decision, a bench of Supreme Court Justice M R Shah and Justice B V Nagarathna said the nature of allegations against Upadhyay, who was serving as a head constable (ministerial) in the 15th Battalion of the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Bongaigaon, were grave in nature.

The bench noted that the accused entered the women's barrack around 00:15 hours, ''maybe to meet his alleged friend Rupasi Barman, but such an indisciplined conduct leading to compromising the security of the occupants of the Mahila Barrack cannot be tolerated''.

''As a member of the disciplined force SSB, he was expected to follow the rules,'' the bench said.

The bench further dismissed the accused's argument that his punishment was ''disproportionate'', since co-accused Rupasi Barman, who allowed his entry, was inflicted with a lesser punishment, observing that the misconduct committed by him, being a male head constable, cannot be equated with the misconduct committed by the female constable. ''The misconduct of entering the Mahila Barrack of the Battalion at midnight is more serious when committed by a male head constable,'' it said.

The bench said that, even otherwise, merely because one of the employees was inflicted with a lesser punishment cannot be a ground to hold the punishment imposed on another employee as disproportionate, if in the case of another employee higher punishment is warranted and inflicted by the disciplinary authority after due application of mind. ''There cannot be any negative discrimination. The punishment to be imposed on a particular employee depends upon various factors, like the position of the employee in the department, the role attributed to him and the nature of allegations against him,'' the SC said.

It said if the conduct on the part of the accused entering the women's barrack of the battalion at midnight is approved, it would lead to compromising the security of its occupants. The accused was charged with violation of good order and discipline under Section 43 of the Shashastra Seema Bal Act. The accused was apprehended inside the women's barrack by six female constables. He was charged with indiscipline and misconduct leading to compromising the security of the occupants of the women's barrack.

The matter was reported to the superiors and he was placed under suspension. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The appellant pleaded not guilty.

The SFC found the appellant guilty of the charges and initially ordered his dismissal on April 29, 2013. The penalty was converted to ''removal from service'' on June 21, 2013, by the Commandant of the Battalion. Parallel proceedings were drawn up against Rupasi Barman, and she was also found guilty and given the penalty of forfeiture of two years seniority in the rank of constable and also forfeiture of two years' service for promotion only.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)