Delhi HC upholds penalty for CISF officer in sexual harassment case

The order followed an internal inquiry into a complaint filed by a female CISF sub-inspector, who accused the male officer of sending vulgar messages, making inappropriate phone calls

A married officer serving in a uniformed force sending vulgar messages to a woman is “unacceptable and unbecoming,” the Delhi High Court has observed, while upholding a disciplinary penalty against a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) sub-inspector found guilty of sexually harassing a female colleague.

The Delhi HC affirmed the CISF’s September 2016 order imposing a two-year pay reduction and a bar on increments during that period (File photo)

A bench of justices Subramonium Prasad and Vimal Kumar Yadav, in a verdict released on Tuesday, affirmed the CISF’s September 2016 order imposing a two-year pay reduction and a bar on increments during that period.

The order followed an internal inquiry into a complaint filed by a female CISF sub-inspector from the same unit, who accused the male officer of sending vulgar WhatsApp messages, making inappropriate phone calls, and even visiting her residence in an inebriated state. She also alleged that he had touched her inappropriately and made indecent remarks.

“The petitioner, being a member of a uniformed service and already married, had no business to indulge in a relationship with another lady or send vulgar messages,” the court observed. “This conduct is definitely unbecoming of an officer of a uniformed force. The punishment given to the petitioner is also commensurate with the misconduct – rather, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner has been left very lightly.”

After considering witness statements and material evidence, CISF had found the officer guilty and passed the disciplinary order in 2016. His appeal to CISF director general was dismissed in November 2017, prompting him to approach the high court.

In his petition, the officer claimed the complaint was false and that the woman had tried to “blackmail” him into marriage. He also contended that the messages exchanged were “normal” and part of an informal friendship, arguing that the punishment was excessive and imposed without proper hearing.

CISF, represented by standing counsel Monika Arora, countered that the conduct clearly amounted to sexual harassment at the workplace.

In its 18-page judgment delivered on September 22, the court upheld the disciplinary action, ruling that the punishment was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.