Calcutta high court upholds removal of CISF constable for repeatedly drinking on duty

KOLKATA: Even minute alcohol consumption by a CISF member while on duty is not permitted, Calcutta High Court on May 21 upheld the removal of a constable for repeatedly drinking during duty hours; it was held that if such addiction is spared, it would lead to degeneration of the force’s standard.The CISF member was removed on May 4, 2023, after a major penalty charge sheet was issued against him on Jan 25, 2023. The authorities’ main contention was that he was given four minor penalties for his acts after drinking during work hours, but the constable did not change his ways.

Justice Amrita Sinha held: “The Force consists of several members who come from various parts of the country and they dedicate their lives for the service of the nation. The citizens of the country are proud of the members of the disciplined armed force. Any member who behaves in such a manner which undermines the high prestige of the Force, ought to be dealt with appropriately. A member cannot be allowed or permitted to damage the values that the force stands for.”

The constable’s lawyer argued that apart from taking a breath analyser test, the authority ought to have conducted blood and urine tests to get a more conclusive finding on the level of intoxication. It was contended that the breath test result did not contain details such as the presence of alcohol odour, gait abnormalities, speech impairment, consciousness level or whether the alcohol consumption was moderate or excessive.

It was argued that authorities failed to conduct and subject the constable to the divided attention test, walk and run test or the one-leg stand test.

The authorities submitted that CISF members are deployed in barrages, ports, airports, govt buildings, VIP security, atomic energy, space installation, power plants, among others, which demands the highest level of obedience and discipline. Any disobedience or dereliction of duty can cause loss of lives and property. “He cannot be trusted with any kind of sensitive duty,” it was argued.

But the constable’s counsel argued that drinking alcohol, per se, does not amount to misconduct. “If only the petitioner behaved differently, disturbed people or acted in an unruly manner, then misconduct may have been alleged. By mere consumption of alcohol which the petitioner admits, the capital punishment of removal from service ought not to have been imposed,” it was submitted.

The judge refused to interfere with the removal order and observed, “A CISF personnel has to perform several responsible duties. A person under the influence of alcohol may not be in a position to deliver up to the optimum level. If the personnel cannot be trusted to perform work diligently and efficiently, then there is no point in retaining such a member in the force.”