The Bombay High Court on Wednesday refused to quash a penalty imposed on a CISF constable, who was charged of misconduct for knocking on a neighbours door at odd hours asking for lemons. What the Court has said The court has said that it is absurd and indecent for a CISF personnel to knock on a womans door at midnight and ask for lemon. In this case, the Bombay High Court refused to cancel the fine imposed on the accused CISF. Bombay High Court has given this decision on the petition of Arvind Kumar posted in BPCL (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited) in Mumbai.So what happened exactlyIt was alleged that around midnight on April 19, 2021, the constable knocked on the door of his neighbours house, which was on the same floor as his. Also, knowing that the male head of the household is away and there is only one woman in the house, it is absurd to knock on the neighbors door for the trivial reason of picking up a lemon. It was also found that the constable had consumed alcohol before the incident. Court rejected Arvind Kumars pleaThe woman then filed a complaint before a superior officer who initiated a departmental enquiry, and the charge against Kumar was his behavior. The woman also said that she warned Kumar that her husband was not at home at this time, so he should not disturb her at midnight. On this, Arvind Kumar had argued that he was suffering from stomach upset and he had knocked on the door only to ask for lemon.In his petition, Arvind Kumar had challenged the action of imposing penalty on him in case of misconduct by senior officers in CISF from July 2021 to June 2022. The authorities had reduced Kumars salary for three years. It was also said that his salary has not been increased as punishment.Rejecting Arvind Kumars petition in this case, the division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice MM Sathaye, in its order dated March 11, said that the petitioner constable had consumed alcohol before the incident. This conduct of the petitioner is certainly unbecoming of an officer of a force like CISF. However, the court also said that the intention of the petitioner was certainly not found to be as genuine and clear as alleged.
