The Supreme Court of India upheld the dismissal of an ITBP Constable for stealing cash he was assigned to protect. The verdict highlights the zero-tolerance policy on misconduct within paramilitary forces.

Background of the Case

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a Para Military Force sentry for committing theft while on duty. The respondent, a Constable in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), was found guilty of stealing money from a cash box he was entrusted to safeguard.

Supreme Court’s Observations

A panel of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh stated:

“The respondent was required to carry out his responsibilities and protect the cash boxes with the highest level of dedication, honesty, commitment, and discipline… It is imperative for all force members to understand that there is zero tolerance for such shameless wrongdoing…”

The Court emphasized that someone who was supposed to protect public assets instead became a “plunderer.” The severity of the misconduct warranted nothing less than dismissal from service.

Timeline of Events

• The incident occurred on the night of July 4–5, 2005, when the Constable, posted as a sentry, allegedly forced open the cash box locks, stole substantial cash meant for Coy personnel, and absconded.

• An FIR was filed, followed by a Court of Enquiry that concluded the Constable was guilty.

• He was dismissed from service on November 14, 2005, based on the findings of a Summary Force Court.

Legal Journey: From High Court to Supreme Court

After his departmental appeal was rejected, the Constable moved to the Uttarakhand High Court, claiming his confession was involuntary. Although the Single Bench acknowledged his repentance and cooperation, it held that the principle of proportionality wasn’t followed and directed a reconsideration of the punishment.

However, after the Division Bench upheld this decision, the Union Government escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Principle of Proportionality

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the principle of proportionality is a cornerstone of constitutional law. It allows judicial review of administrative actions to prevent punishments that are arbitrary, excessive, or unjust. However, the Court clarified that proportionality must be assessed based on the unique facts of each case.

In this case, given the Constable’s repeated past misconduct (eight prior instances) and the grave breach of trust, the Court ruled that dismissal was a just and proportionate response.

Upholding Discipline in Paramilitary Forces

The ruling underscored that members of disciplined forces like the ITBP are held to higher ethical standards. The Court reiterated:

“Discipline, ethics, loyalty, dedication to service, and reliability are essential to the job.”

Thus, any action compromising these values—especially involving moral turpitude—must attract strict penalties.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the Union’s appeal and set aside the High Court’s order. The dismissal of the Constable from the ITBP was deemed valid and proportionate, serving as a strong message about the importance of integrity and accountability in uniformed services.