CISF Cannot Remove Member Just for Being in Jail Without Conviction: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently held that a member of a disciplined force cannot be removed from service solely on the ground of incarceration in a criminal case when there is no conviction, holding that such action has no legal or factual basis under the Central Industrial Security Force Act and Rules.

A division bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Rajeev Bharti was hearing a special appeal filed by the Union of India against a 2024 judgment of a single judge bench that had set aside the removal of Vijay Kumar Pandey, a CISF Head Constable accused in a murder case.

Pandey was appointed in the CISF in October 2009 after retiring from the Indian Army. In April 2019, he was taken into custody by the Deoria police in connection with a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the IPC. He remained in judicial custody from 1 May 2019 until he was granted bail by the High Court in September 2019.

After his release, Pandey sought permission to resume duties. Instead, he was placed under suspension and subsequently served with a chargesheet alleging gross misconduct. The sole basis of the charge was his incarceration in a criminal case of a serious nature, which, according to the disciplinary authority, had tarnished the image of the force. In December 2019, he was removed from service.

Challenging this action, Pandey approached the High Court, arguing that he had not been convicted and that no allegation of misconduct related to his official duties had been made. The single judge bench accepted his plea and quashed the removal order along with the appellate and revisional orders.

Before the division bench, the Union of India relied on Section 8(i) of the CISF Act, 1968, and provisions of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, contending that involvement in a heinous criminal offence rendered Pandey unfit for service. It was argued that the disciplinary authority was justified in concluding that he had failed to maintain integrity and conduct befitting a government servant.

Rejecting these submissions, the bench held that Section 8 of the CISF Act permits removal only when an enrolled member is found remiss or negligent in the discharge of duties or unfit for service. Court observed that none of these conditions were satisfied merely because the employee had been incarcerated pending trial.

The judges noted that at the time of issuance of the chargesheet and the removal order, Pandey had not been convicted, and even as on date the criminal trial was still pending. In such circumstances, the court said, it was “unthinkable” for the disciplinary authority to presume guilt and conclude that he lacked integrity or devotion to duty.

The bench further observed that incarceration in a criminal case may justify suspension during pendency of trial, but it cannot, by itself, form the foundation for removal from service.

While upholding the single judge’s decision to quash the removal, the division bench modified the relief relating to monetary benefits. It held that payment of suspension-period wages and post-retiral dues could not be directed mechanically and must be decided by the competent authority under applicable financial and pension rules, including Fundamental Rules 53, 54A and 54B.

Court directed the authorities to take a reasoned decision on these aspects within three months. Pandey, who attained the age of superannuation on 31 January 2025, will not face any issue of continued suspension, the Bench clarified.

With these directions, the appeal was allowed in part.

Case Title: Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs C.g.o. Complax New Delhi and 4 others vs. Vijay Kumar Pandey

Judgment Date: November 18, 2025

Bench: Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Rajeev Bharti