THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1403 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner was working as Head Constable/Driver in Visakhapatnam unit of Central Industrial Security Force in the year 2002. His wife committed suicide on 31.08.2002 by pouring kerosene and putting herself on fire. During the course of treatment, she succumbed to burn injuries and died. Taking the said fact into account, the Commandant, C.I.S.F., respondent No.2 herein, caused preliminary enquiry. This was followed by issuance of charge sheet, dated 14.09.2002, on the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner was that he is in the evil habit of consumption of liquor and did not give up the habit even after repeated requests made by his wife and having become frustrated with the petitioner, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting herself ablaze on 31.08.2002. The petitioner submitted his explanation. He stated that he did not resort to any acts of indiscipline in the course of his service and at no point of time, he had any quarrel with his wife. He contends that the unfortunate incident of suicide by his wife cannot constitute a ground for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. He further stated that in the Dying Declaration also, his wife stated that she did not face any harassment from him. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority ordered departmental enquiry. A report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding that the charge is proved. Respondent No.2 agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and invited comments of the petitioner, on the report. The petitioner submitted his representation on 02.01.2003, raising several contentions. On a consideration of the same, respondent No.2 passed final order, dated 11.01.2003, directing removal of the petitioner, from service. Appeal preferred by the petitioner to respondent No.4 was rejected on 03.09.2002. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the only charge framed against him does not constitute misconduct, nor it was alleged that he has resorted to any acts of indiscipline. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.2. He states that being a Member of Disciplinary Force, the petitioner was not supposed to consume liquor at any time and according to Section 15 of the CISF Act, 1968, a Member is supposed to be on duty always. He submits that the prescribed procedure was followed and the order of removal was passed strictly in accordance with law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government. The only charge framed against the petitioner reads as under: That CISF No.934650274 HC/Dvr Magathala Giri of CISF Unit VPT Visakhapatnam has shown an incorrigible nature of evil habit of consuming liquor regularly even after repeated requests of his wife Smt.Mangathala Sumathi to come out from the addiction of. As the said HC/Dvr failed to follow her advice, his evil habit finally claimed the life of Smt.M.Sumathi, his wife who committed suicide by pouring kerosene on person and setting herself ablaze at their Quarter N.647, Type-II, Salagramapuram at about 08.00 hrs on 31.08.2002 later she died at about 19.05 hrs on 05.09.2002 at Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam. The acts committed by HC/Dvr Magathala Giri tantamounts to grave indiscipline and unbecoming being a member of Armed Force of the union like CISF.” From a perusal of the same, it is evident that the unfortunate suicide, resorted to by the wife of the petitioner constituted the basis. No acts of indiscipline in relation to the discharge of duties was attributed to the petitioner. No provision of law was invoked with reference to the acts alleged against him. In his detailed explanation, the petitioner stated that he never had any misunderstanding with his wife and the occasional consumption of liquor was only to relieve himself from the stress and strain. He further pleaded that he did not resort to any acts of indiscipline in his service. It was also his case that no prosecution was initiated against him on account of death of his wife and even in the F.I.R., she categorically stated that she never faced any harassment from him. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, respondent No.2 ordered departmental enquiry and the Assistant Commandant was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Fairly large numbers of witnesses were examined and through a detailed report, dated 14.12.2002, the Enquiry Officer held that the charge against the petitioner is proved. This was following by issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner, submission of reply by him and passing of the final order. The conditions of service of the members of the CISF are governed by the Rules framed under the CISF Act. The Rules define the various acts of misconduct, which, if resorted to by the members, would entail in disciplinary action. The Service Rules of any organization throw light upon the manner in which a member thereof must act, and discourage or prohibit them from resorting to acts of misconduct. The very basis for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against a member must be, an allegation as to acts of misconduct, as defined under the relevant Service Rules. It has already been pointed out in the preceding paragraphs, that no provision of law was cited to suggest that the petitioner has resorted to any acts of misconduct. Here itself, it needs to be made clear that, howsoever desirable it may be, for a member of service, or Force, to lead an ideal social life, the employer would not take upon himself, the task of regulating the social life of its members in every respect. It is only when the acts and omissions even in private life that would constitute an act of misconduct under the relevant Service Rules are noticed, that an occasion would arise to frame the charge, with reference to the relevant provision of law, and to proceed against him. The allegation made against the petitioner has no traces of misconduct or indiscipline, vis-à-vis his performance in the Force. Therefore, even if the allegation made against the petitioner is factually correct, it does not constitute legal basis for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. Assuming that the respondents have the right to regulate the private life of the petitioner also, it needs to be seen that no criminal case was instituted against the petitioner, much less he was prosecuted by the State. Specific reference was made by the petitioner to the dying declaration of his wife. The respondents are not able to furnish any reasons for ignoring the dying declaration. The ground pleaded by the respondents that the petitioner is deemed to be in service throughout day and night, is too spacious. That assumption is only in the context of placing an obligation upon a member of service, to be ready to discharge the duties, whenever assigned, during day or night, or for days together, continuously, depending upon the exigency. Such a presumption cannot be extended to the private life of a member of the Force. The logical extension of such a principle would lead to a situation, where the member is supposed to be in uniform throughout the day and night, that too, without any holidays. That hardly would be the purport of the duties of the members of any Force. Viewed from any angle, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondent shall reinstate the petitioner into service with full back wages and attendant benefits. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 24.12.2010. kdl