The court's observation came while rejecting a plea of a CISF constable, who was dismissed from service in 2011 after he was found involved in chatting on Facebook with a woman, who as per intelligence report was working as an undercover agent of Pakistan.
"..From perusal of the aforesaid reasoning and noting the allegation against the petitioner of divulging information with regard to CISF units and his colleagues, is surely an aspect, which is detrimental to security interest of the organisation, more so, when the person to which the information has been divulged is an undercover agent of a hostile foreign country..," a bench of justices Indira Banerjee and V Kameswar Rao said.
In his plea, Singh said that while working at NTPC unit, Simhadri, he was directed to proceed on temporary duty to CISF headquarters in New Delhi on October 24, 2011.
He said that at the CISF headquarters, he was asked about his Facebook account and he told the senior officials that he had not disclosed any kind of information to anyone.
The petitioner said that after returning to his unit, he received an order of December 7, 2011 which said he was being dismissed from service since he was involved in chatting on Facebook with one Tanzeela Mazeed, who was working as an undercover agent, and had allegedly exchanged information with her.
Singh claimed he had befriended Mazeed on Facebook after checking that many of his superior officers and colleagues were also on her friend list but later stopped communicating with her and immediately deleted his Facebook account.
The Centre's counsel claimed that when Singh was called
to CISF headquarters on October 24, 2011, he confessed to having given bank account number and certain information regarding CISF units in Rajasthan and his e-mail address to Mazeed.
However, Singh's counsel said dismissing his client after 11 years of outstanding service on this ground was "clearly untenable" as he had not shared any information with Mazeed.
"There was material in the form of a statement of the petitioner himself and the information given by the sister intelligence agency and on analysing the same, if the competent authority concludes that in the scenario, it is not possible to hold an inquiry, this court is of the view that the same cannot be faulted," it said.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
