Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of Arunchalam P. v. Director General CISF   has held that the Doctrine of Equality shall be applied to the punishments across different forces under the Ministry of Home Affairs. 

What was the Background of the Arunchalam P. v. Director General CISF Case? 

• In this case, two petitioners, Vikesh Kumar Singh and Arunchalam P., were employed as Constables (General Duty) in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). 
• Both were posted on deputation at the High Commission of India (HCI) in Dhaka under the Ministry of External Affairs. 
• On 26^th January 2018, when officials were away hosting the Republic Day parade, an unauthorized lady entered the Chancery where the petitioners were on duty. 
• The lady allegedly entered along with an Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) Force member, Head Constable Mahesh Makhwana. 
• The HCI issued Show Cause Notices to both petitioners on 13th February 2018, regarding this security breach. 
• Dissatisfied with the petitioner’s replies, the HCI prematurely repatriated both petitioners from their diplomatic mission duty. 
• Though the HCI made no recommendations for further action, CISF independently initiated disciplinary proceedings against both petitioners. 
• CISF issued Memorandums of Charge on 31^st March 2018, proposing major penalties under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001. 
• The petitioners claimed they were on Morcha duty (armed guard duty) and it wasn't their responsibility to check visitor entries.  
• They stated the lady came to clean HC Makwana's room. 
• After disciplinary proceedings, both petitioners were removed from the service. 
• The petitioners appealed against these orders, but their appeals were dismissed. 
• They then filed revision petitions, which were also dismissed. 
• Meanwhile, the ITBP member involved in the same incident, HC Mahesh Makhwana, received only a "severe reprimand" as punishment from his department. 
• The difference in punishment severity between the CISF and ITBP personnel for the same incident became a key issue in the case for which the writ petition is filed before the Delhi High court by the petitioners. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Delhi High Court made the following observations:  
  • On Dereliction of Duty: 
    • The Court found that the petitioners showed a clear dereliction of their duties. 
    • Their actions demonstrated a non-serious approach towards their duty. 
    • They facilitated and aided a breach of security at a critical and sensitive post. 
    • The breach could have resulted in a serious security lapse. 
  • On Additional Inquiry by CISF: 
    • The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that no further inquiry could be conducted in India after the HCI's inquiry. 
    • Clarified that HCI's preliminary inquiry was only for deciding repatriation. 
    • Confirmed CISF's right to conduct disciplinary proceedings even if the borrowing authority (HCI) didn't conduct one. 
  • On Disciplinary Powers: 
    • The Court noted that Rule 14 of CISF Act deals with deputation of Force personnel. 
    • Rule 41 covers the Borrowing Authority's powers for suspension and disciplinary proceedings. 
    • These rules don't prohibit the Lending Authority (CISF) from initiating disciplinary inquiry. 
  • On Discrimination in Punishment: 
    • The Court observed that all Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) under the Ministry of Home Affairs are governed by similar rules. 
    • Noted the disparity in punishment: ITBP member got 'severe reprimand' while CISF members were removed from service. 
    • Found this variation in punishment among CAPFs would lead to injustice. 
    • It concluded that the punishment was discriminatory and disproportionate. 
  • The Delhi High Court ultimately set aside the removal orders of the petitioners and considered the five years out of service as sufficient punishment 
  • The Delhi High Court directed reinstatement without back wages or other benefits to the petitioners and the ITBP member.  

What is the Doctrine of Equality? 

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) affirms the fundamental right of “equality before the law” and “equal protection of law” to all persons. 
• The first expression “equality before law” is of England origin and the second expression “equal protection of law” has been taken from the American Constitution. 
• Equality is a cardinal principle enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India as its primary objective. 
• It is a system of treating all human beings with fairness and impartiality. 
• It also establishes a system of non-discrimination based on grounds mentioned in Article 15 of the COI 
• The purpose of Article 14 of the COI is to give similar treatment to similarly circumstanced persons, both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. 
• Classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational.