Justices Surya Kant, N Kotiswar Singh Slams ITBP Constable’s Robbery: ‘Guardian Turned Looter’ Verdict Upheld

The verdict that was handed out by the Supreme Court on May 20, 2025, was in response to an appeal that was submitted by the Union of India and the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) over the departmental penalty that was handed down to Constable Jageshwar Singh.

In response to instructions issued by the Uttarakhand High Court, which had requested a review of the dismissal that had been imposed on the respondent for stealing cash that was intended for troops, the respondent filed an appeal.

A two-judge bench comprising of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh listened to the arguments presented by the Additional Solicitor General for the appellants and the counsel for the respondent before reaching a ruling that was unanimous.

Jageshwar Singh joined the Indian Police Force (ITBP) on November 30, 1990, and on July 4, 2005, he was assigned to the Kote station as a sentry. He received this assignment during the night of July 4–5.

On that particular evening, he managed to forcefully break the lock on a cash box that contained thousands of rupees that were supposed to be used for soldier pay.

The money box was hidden roughly two hundred yards away from the post, and he then fled, which resulted in a search being conducted across the whole force. Everyone agreed that his acts were a serious breach of trust and responsibility, and they were denounced unanimously.

A Court of Inquiry and a later Summary Court-Martial came to the conclusion that he was responsible for the crime that occurred after his detention on July 6, 2005. A confession that Singh willingly admitted to having committed the heist was not withdrawn, nor was it disputed on the basis that it was obtained under coercion.

He was terminated from his position on November 14, 2005, and his appeal to the department was denied. The disciplinary authority had removed him from service. After that, the High Court considered a writ petition that challenged the amount of penalty, despite the fact that it did not find any flaws in the summary processes or the confession they had received.

In spite of the fact that it upheld the judgment of guilt, the Uttarakhand High Court questioned whether or not the dismissal was acceptable by referring to the constitutional principle of proportionality.

It asked the body in charge of disciplinary actions to review whether a lighter sentence could be sufficient, taking into consideration Singh’s clean conscience and his contrition. The sentence was essentially put on hold for further review as a result of this directive, which applied to both the first order from November 2012 and the appeal ruling.

Following the subsequent opposition from the Union and ITBP, the High Court issued an order on September 27, 2018, which was subsequently challenged.

Through their appeal, the Union and ITBP argued that the High Court had exceeded its power by substituting the discretion of the disciplinary body on the amount of penalty that should be imposed.

The individuals who responded to the survey felt that discipline and honesty are of the utmost importance in paramilitary forces, especially in very sensitive border assignments. Specifically, they held that any violation, particularly one that amounted to the theft of public monies, justified the most severe punishment possible.

At the same time, on August 2, 2019, the Supreme Court granted leave and stayed the order issued by the High Court.

During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the appellants brought forth eight previous incidents of misbehavior committed by Singh. These cases showed a pattern of indiscipline that was not appropriate for more stringent service conditions.

In their petition, they sought the Supreme Court to restate that those who are responsible for the management of public resources have an increased responsibility of loyalty; a breach of that obligation is incompatible with accepted standards of service. During the course of its deliberations, the Court highlighted that proportionality does not equal to mercy in situations when the basic trust that underpins the partnership is broken.

The notion of proportionality must be influenced by the type and intensity of wrongdoing, as the Supreme Court reaffirmed in its well-reasoned opinion, which stressed the importance of this principle.

After observing that the policeman had been entrusted with the responsibility of protecting large public monies, Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh made the observation that the constable had “turned guardian into looter,” which is a betrayal that “pricks the conscience” of any disciplinary system.

They were of the opinion that in paramilitary settings, there should be no tolerance for moral turpitude since it is necessary to preserve the integrity of operations.

As a consequence of this, the Court granted the appeal, overturned the High Court’s order to review the sentence, and rejected the plea for a writ. The initial dismissal decision was reinstated, and it was affirmed that the judgment was not unreasonable nor excessive in light of the respondent’s breach of duty.

The decision reaffirms that public service jurisprudence, especially inside armed or quasi-military formations, requires the greatest standards of honesty, loyalty, and discipline from each and every member of the organization.

This ruling makes it quite clear that the professional requirements of paramilitary forces must be taken into consideration when conducting judicial reviews of disciplinary proceedings.

In situations when public and national security interests are at risk, proportionality cannot be allowed to take precedence above service standards for spotless behavior, despite the fact that it continues to be a constitutional guarantee.

Because of this, the decision reaffirms the notion that individuals who are entrusted with the wealth and security of the public must be liable to stringent standards or else they would be subject to the full rigor of service law.