Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949

27 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusDILER SINGH

2016 INSC 47930 June 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Constable Oiler Singh of the CRPF left his camp without permission, consumed alcohol and quarrelled with civilians. The disciplinary authority dismissed him under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. Singh filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the dismissal was illegal; the trial court s

BOBINDRA KUMAR & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 96627 August 2019Dismissed

The case concerned seniority of Sub‑Inspectors (General Duty) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). Direct recruits were selected through a 2007 advertisement, allotted to units on 5 October 2009 and issued offer letters in mid‑October 2009, reporting for training in January 2010. Promotee Sub‑Inspectors were app

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusG. ANNADURAI

2009 INSC 62527 April 2009Appeal(s) allowed

G. Annadurai, a constable of the CRPF, was arrested in a theft case and released on bail on 14 August 1997 but failed to report for duty thereafter. He was declared a deserter on 19 December 1997 and a departmental enquiry under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 was instituted. Despite multipl

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusP. THAYAGARAJAN

1998 INSC 44024 November 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a Sub‑Inspector of the CRPF, was charged with disobeying transfer orders, neglect of duty and misconduct. During the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer treated letters from two witnesses—one for the department and one for the respondent—as oral statements, despite the witnesses’ inability to appe

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusAMAR SINGH

2007 INSC 118323 November 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Amar Singh, a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), was found after 29 years of service to have entered the force using a fictitious school leaving certificate. A departmental enquiry confirmed the fraud, leading to his dismissal under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 and Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSversusSHISHU PAL @ SHIV PAL

2024 INSC 55023 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a Constable (GD) in the CRPF, filled a verification roll in November 2011 denying any pending criminal cases, despite having been arrested, bailed, and having two FIRs registered against him earlier that year. The employer discovered the omission, issued a show‑cause notice, and after a departmental inq

THE COMMANDANT, 22 BATTALION, CRPF SRINAGAR, C/O 56/APO & ORS.versusSURINDER KUMAR

2011 INSC 77420 October 2011Appeal(s) allowed

A constable of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) left his patrol without permission, consumed alcohol on duty, and threatened his superior with a rifle. He was convicted under Section 10(n) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court, and was dismissed

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusGULAM MOHD. BHAT

2005 INSC 51120 October 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Gulam Mohd. Bhat, a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, overstayed his sanctioned leave by 315 days. The competent authority initiated departmental proceedings and, invoking Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and Rule 27 of the 1955 Rules, ordered his removal from service. Bhat chall

LAXMI SHANKAR PANDEYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1991 INSC 7919 March 1991Dismissed

L.S. Pandey, a Head Constable of the Central Reserve Police Force, was charged with negligence after two under‑trial Burmese prisoners escaped from his custody. A departmental enquiry was held, cancelled, and a fresh enquiry was conducted, resulting in a finding of neglect of duty under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusCONST SUNIL KUMAR

2023 INSC 5519 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Constable Sunil Kumar of the CRPF was found to have consumed liquor and threatened senior officers, an act of insubordination and misconduct. After a departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority dismissed him under Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949, following Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, and the dismissal was co

RA VI PAUL AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1995 INSC 5919 January 1995Dismissed

The petitioners, Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCOs) appointed as Assistant Commandants in the Border Security Force (BSF) between 1974 and 1978, claimed that their prior Army service should be counted for seniority, relying on Rule 8(b) of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Rules. The Court examined wheth

ANGAD DASversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2010 INSC 11118 February 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Angad Das, a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, was compulsorily retired in 1996 after an enquiry found his date of birth to be false. He wrote a humble letter to the DIG requesting re‑employment on compassionate grounds, but the DIG treated the letter as an appeal under Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules and enhanc

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusBASHIRBHAI R. KHILIJI

2007 INSC 60016 May 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, was invalidated after contracting pyogenic meningitis and suffering bilateral deafness while on duty. He applied for an invalid pension but was denied on the ground that he had not completed the ten years of qualifying service required under the Central C

SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENTversusKAMTA PRASAD MISHRA AND OTHERS

2026 INSC 64415 June 2026Dismissed

The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, constituted under the 1947 Act to investigate corruption‑related offences, was directed by the High Court to disclose information sought by a Town Inspector under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI). The appellant argued that a 2011 State Government notific

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusSHRI RAM GOPAL AGARWAL AND ORS.

1998 INSC 2715 January 1998Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners (Union of India and others) challenged a tribunal order that directed payment of 50% of the ration allowance to non‑gazetted, non‑combatant hospital staff of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) who had not opted for combatant status. These staff were governed by the Central Civil Services Rules, whe

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusBALI RAM NO. 850808321

2026 INSC 68913 July 2026Dismissed

Bali Ram, a CRPF constable, was medically invalidated in 1998 after developing severe ophthalmic disability. He sought only a disability pension, but the Single Judge invoked Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and ordered his reinstatement with full service benefits. The Union of India and other CRPF

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusDWARKA PRASAD TIWARI

2006 INSC 69812 October 2006Disposed off

Dwarka Prasad Tiwari, a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, fired his service weapon without orders while on sentry duty, injuring himself. A departmental inquiry under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 found him guilty of misconduct and negligence and dismissed him. The High Court set aside the dismissal as "

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusEX. CONSTABLE RAM KARAN

2021 INSC 71511 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Constable Ram Karan of the CRPF assaulted a doctor and falsely accused him of sexual harassment. A departmental inquiry under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules found the charges proved and imposed removal from service, which was affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. The Delhi High Court substituted the removal

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusSITARAM MISHRA AND ANR.

2019 INSC 74911 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a constable of the CRPF, was dismissed after a disciplinary enquiry found him guilty of misconduct for carelessly handling his loaded 9 mm carbine, which discharged eight rounds and killed a fellow constable. The same incident led to a criminal trial under Section 304 IPC, from which the respondent was a

AKHILESH PRASADversusUNION TERRITORY OF MIZORAM

1981 INSC 2911 February 1981Appeal(s) allowed

Akhlsh Prasad, a member of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), was charged under IPC sections 307, 326 and 324 for allegedly firing on two persons on 30 May 1978. He sought to quash the proceedings, arguing that the offences were committed while he was acting in the discharge of his official duty as a member of th

R.C. SAHI AND ORS. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 41810 November 1998Dismissed

The petitioners, former Emergency Commissioned Officers (ECOs) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), challenged the seniority list prepared by the Union of India, alleging that the list improperly accounted for their past Army service. The Court examined whether the 1967 Rules on ECOs applied to seniority matters

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusSANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI

2024 INSC 3928 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a Head Constable in the CRPF, was found guilty of assaulting a colleague and was compulsorily retired under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. He challenged the retirement, arguing that Rule 27's provision of compulsory retirement was ultra vires Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949, and that the punishment w

STATE (UNION OF INDIA)versusRAM SARAN

2003 INSC 6894 December 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Constable Ram Saran of the CRPF, was convicted by an Assistant Commandant exercising the powers of a Judicial Magistrate under Section 10(m) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act for unauthorised absence and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. The Sessions Court and the Himachal Pradesh High Cour

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusRAM LAKHAN SHARMA

2018 INSC 5582 July 2018Dismissed

The Union of India appealed against several High Court judgments that set aside the dismissal of CRPF constables on the ground that no Presenting Officer was appointed and the Inquiry Officer acted as prosecutor, violating natural justice. The respondents had been dismissed following departmental inquiries under Rule 2

COMMANDANT 20 BN. ITB POLICEversusSANJAY BINJOLA

2001 INSC 2452 May 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a constable of the Indo‑Tibetan Border Police, was convicted under Section 10(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. On appeal, the appellate court modified the sentence and directed that the order would not adversely affect the respondent's service caree

RAM SARANversusI.G. OF POLICE, CRPF AND ORS.

2006 INSC 662 February 2006Dismissed

Ram Saran was appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force by falsifying his date of birth on a school certificate. After 27 years of service, a departmental enquiry found him guilty of furnishing false information to secure appointment, a violation of Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act and Rule 14 of the CC

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusBAKSHI RAM

1990 INSC 701 March 1990Appeal(s) allowed

Bakshi Ram, a constable of the Central Reserve Police Force, was convicted under Section 10(1) of the CRPF Act for forcibly entering a constable's room and assaulting his wife, and was sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment. While his appeal against the conviction was pending, the department dismissed him from

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search