Authority: High Court of Manipur, Imphal

Order Date: 10-08-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Tensubam Khomei Singh, Constable (CISF No. 964651076), resident of Imphal East, Manipur. Respondents – Union of India (represented by Secretary, Home Affairs), Director General CISF, and CO, CIS Unit Oil Duliajan, Assam.
  • Background: The petitioner served as a Constable in CISF, Unit Oil Duliajan (2007‑2019). On 17‑09‑2019 he was found smoking away from his post, later brandished his rifle, fired four rounds, injuring a fellow constable. Criminal proceedings were instituted but the petitioner was acquitted. The disciplinary authority dismissed him on 25‑09‑2009 (impugned order) without a departmental enquiry, invoking Rule 39(ii) of the CISF Rules, 2001. The statutory appeal against dismissal was rejected on 30‑12‑2009.
  • Earlier Judicial History: The High Court initially quashed the dismissal on 14‑02‑2023 and ordered reinstatement. Respondents appealed (WA No. 57 of 2023); the appellate court remanded the matter on 12‑09‑2023, directing the petitioner to amend his prayer. The petitioner filed a recast petition seeking rule nisi, certiorari, mandamus and any other appropriate relief.
  • Preliminary Objections: (a) Respondents argued lack of territorial jurisdiction because the incident and dismissal occurred in Assam. (b) They contended the petitioner had not exhausted statutory remedies under Sec 9(2‑A) of the CISF Act and Rule 54 of the CISF Rules, 2001. Both objections were rejected. The Court held that the cause of action arose partly in Manipur (petitioner’s residence and communication of orders), satisfying the jurisdictional test under Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India (2014 9 SCC 329) and the constitutional amendment to Article 226.
  • Statutory Framework:
  • Rule 36‑38 of CISF Rules, 2001 mandate a departmental enquiry before dismissal.
  • Rule 39(ii) permits dismissal without enquiry only when the authority is satisfied, in writing, that holding an enquiry is not reasonably practicable.
  • Section 9(2‑A) CISF Act and Rule 54 provide for a revision petition within six months of the appellate order.
  • Court’s Reasoning on Procedural Violation: The dismissal order’s paragraphs 7 and 8 claimed the petitioner created fear and intimidation, rendering witnesses unwilling to depose. The Court found:
  • Multiple senior officers (Assistant Commandant, Inspector, PSO, Driver) were eyewitnesses; seniority makes intimidation implausible.
  • During the criminal trial, all seven prosecution witnesses, including the above officers, testified.
  • No material was placed on record to substantiate the claim that witnesses feared retaliation; the reasons were therefore irrelevant and insufficient under the standards set by Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel and subsequent Supreme Court pronouncements.
  • Conclusion on Merit: The dismissal and appellate orders were passed without complying with mandatory procedural safeguards and based on unsustained grounds. Consequently, they cannot be sustained.

Final Outcome

  • The impugned dismissal order dated 25‑09‑2009 and the appellate order dated 30‑12‑2009 are quashed and set aside.
  • Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in CISF service forthwith, with full back wages and all consequential service benefits.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Topics: Legal Procedure, Service Discipline