ANGAD DASversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                    [2010] 2 S.C.R. 1047


                        ANGAD DAS                                 A
                              v.
                  UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
          (Civi! Appeal Nos. 1429-1430 OF 2008)

                    FEBRUARY 18, 2010
                                                                  B
    [DALVEER BHANDARI AND A. K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

     Service law:

      Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 - r. 28 -          c
Delinquent official punished with 'compulsory retirement' on
 the charge of suppression of real date of birth at the time of
joining service - Letter by the delinquent official to higher
authority requesting to consider his re-employment - Treating
the letter as appeal, punishment enhanced to 'removal from        0
service' - Review dismissed by the authority concerned -
Dismissal of writ petition - On appeal, held: Letter requesting
re-employment cannot be treated as appeal u/r. 28 -
Imposition of enhanced punishment was unjustified -
Direction to pay pensionary benefits with interest.
                                                                  E
     The appellant, recruited as a constable in Central
Reserve Police Force, was issued show-cause notice,
after about 25 years of service alleging that his date of
birth given at the time of joining the service, was found
false. After the enquiry, he was given the punishment of F
compulsory retirement. The appellant, thereafter, wrote a
letter to DIG Police, CRPF, praying for his re-employment
in view of the fact that he had enormous family
responsibility. This letter was treated as an appeal, and
DIG Police, CRPF, enhanced his punishment to 'removal G
from service'. The revision petition there against was
dismissed by the competent authority. The writ petition
challenging the orders was dismissed. Hence the present
appeals.
                             1047                                 H
    1048    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A       Allowing the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1. The letter requesting for re-employment
  could not have been treated as an appeal under Rule 28
  of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1·955_ The 0.1.G.
  Police, CRPF, was unjustified in enhancing the
8
  punishment from 'compulsory retirement' to 'removal
  from service'. The order was legally untenable. The
  reviewing authority has also seriously erred in upholding
  the order passed by the 0.1.G. Police, CRPF. The appellant
C and his family have suffered tremendous mental agony,
  and harassment was caused to them on account of
  arbitrary orders. The appellant be paid all the pensionary
  benefits which have become due and payable to him, "
  with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, within two
  moths from the date of communication of this order.
D [Paras 8, 10 and 11] [1051-C-E, G-H; 1052-A]
                                                           .   '
         2. People in power and authority should not easily
    lose equ~nimity, composure and appreciation for the
    problems of the lesser mortals. They are always expected
E .·to remember that power and authority must be
    judiciously exercised according to the laws and human
    compassion. Arrogance and vanity have no place in
    discharge of their official functions and duties. The Court
    hopes and trusts that senior officials in future would not
F be totally oblivious of the problems of the humble and
    modest employees and pass similar orders. [Paras 1 and
    13] [1049-B-C; 1052-B]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.·
    1429-1430 of 2010.
G
         From the Judgment & Order dated 12.5.2008 & 4.8.208
    of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Writ Petition
    No. 5006 of 1998 .

        .Dalip Kumar Malhotra, Rajesh Malhotra for the _Appellant.
H
       ANGAD DAS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                   1049


    Vivek Tankha, ASG, Satya Siiddique, A. Deb Kumar,                A
Shreekant N. Terdal for the Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. People in power and
authority should not easily lose equanimity, composure and           8
appreciation for the problems of the lesser mortals. They are
always expected to remember that power and authority must
be judiciously exercised according to the laws and human
compassion. Arrogance and vanity have no place in discharge
of their official functions and duties.                              C

     2. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

     3. Heard the learned Additional Solicitor General and the
learned counsel for the appellant at length. Brief facts necessary   D
to dispose of these appeals are recapitulated as under:-

      4. The appellant was recruited as a Constable in the
Central Reserve Police Force, Balia Police Line in the State
of U.P. in the year 1969. He was promoted to the post of Lance
Naik, then as Naik and thereafter to the post of Head Constable.     E
When the appellant was posted as a Head Constable at
Jammu and Kashmir, he was served a show cause notice
dated 11'.4. 1.995 by the Commandant 51 BN, C.R.P.F.
(respondent no.4) alleging that the date of birth as given by him
at the time of joining the service was found false. An enquiry       F
was conducted and thereafter the appellant was compulsorily
retired from the service by way of punishment by an order dated
14th June, 1996 by respondent no.4. The said order reads as
under:-

    "After careful thought and keeping in view of his long           G
    service career, a family to support and considering natural
    justice, I hereby impose the punishment of
    'COMPULSORY RETIREMENT FROM SERVICE WITH
    FULL PENSIONARY BENEFITS AND GRATUITY' on
    No.690298321 HC Angad Dass w.e.f. 31/5/96 AN, in                 H
     1050     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 2 S.C.R.      1




A         pursuance of the authority vested in me under Section
          11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with table below Rule 27
          of CRPF Rule 1955."

          5. The appellant had sent a very polite letter of request to
     the Additional District Inspector General, Police (for short, DIG)
8
     praying that his request for re-employment be kindly considered
     because he has enormous responsibility of educating and
     m_arrying five daughters. The prayer was made with folded
     hands and touching his feet. The letter reflected pinnacle of
     humility. The relevant portion of request letter reads as under:.:.
c
        , "I am burdened with the education and marriages of five
          daughters and I am the only earning hand and according
          to the hereditary record of Gram Panchayat my date of /
          birth is 8.7.47. I had received that record underthe order
'D        of BOO. I am also havil)g certificate from the G,r~m
          Pradhan. I, therefore, with folded hands and touching the
          feet praying that I may be allowed to complete tl)fiservice
          and I may be awarded any other punishment otherwise,
          seven people will be uprooted and will resort to beggary
E         and will fall on the wrong path for earning their bread."

         6. Respondent No.4 would have been fully justified in either
   accepting or declining the appellant's request for re-
   employment, but astonishingly, on 8th October, 1996 the
F request letter of the appellant for re-employment was treated
 . as an appeal by the DIG Police, CRPF, Avadi, Madras and the
   punishment of "compulsory retirement" as awarded by the
   Commandant, 51 BN, CRPF, was enhanced to that of "removal
   from service" w.e.f. 31.5.1996. No provision of law permits him
   to treat a letter of request for re-employment as an appeal. The
G DIG (Police) has no power or authority to enhance the sentence
   of the appellant. We fail to comprehend how such an innocuous
   and polite letter of request seeking re-employment on
   compassionate ground can ever receive such an unwarranted
   and arrogant reaction. The order is wholly arbitrary and illegal.
H
        ANGAD DAS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                   1051
             [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

      7. The appellant aggrieved by the said order filed a            A
 revision petition before the Special Director General, C.R.P.F.,
 Hyderabad who unfortunately passed the following order on 2nd
 August, .1997. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-

      "HC Angad Das of 51 BN CRPF is hereby removed from              8
      service with effect from the date of issue of this order. The
      intervening period between 31-5-96 (AN) to the date of this
      order will be treated as 'Dies Non' for all purposes."

        8. We are astonished as to how a simple letter of request
  for re-employment has been treated as an appeal by the D.l.G. C
  Police, CRPF, and in exercise of his power under Rule 28 of
  the CRPF Rules, 1955, the punishment of "compulsory
  retirement" from service has been enhanced to "removal from               ·'
  service" w.e.f. 31.5.1996. The mere letter for re-employment
  could not have been treated as an appeal under Rule 28 of the . D
  CRPF Rules, 1955. The D.l.G. Police, CRPF, was totally
  unjustified in enhancing the punishment frc.. ... "compulsory
/ retirement" to "removal from service". The order was legally
  untenable. The Special Director General has also seriously
  erred in upholding the order dated 8th October, 1996 passed E
  by the D.l.G. Police, CRPF.

      9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we
 are constrained to set aside the orders dated 8th October, 1996
 and 2nd August, 1997. Consequently, the order dated
                                                                      F
 21.5.1996 passed by the Commandant, 51 BN, CRPF as
 amended by order dated 14.6.1996 of compulsory retirement
 is restored. The appellant would be entitled to all the benefits
 which flow from the said order.

       10. The appellant and his family have suffered tremendous      G
 mental agony and harassment caused to them on account of
 totally arbitrary orders mentioned above.

     11. We also direct that the appellant be paid all the
 pensionary benefits which have become due and payable to             H .
     1052     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 2 S.C.R.


~A   him, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, within two months
     from the date of communication of this order.

          1.2. Consequently, these appeals are allowed. Respondent
     No.1, Union of India is directed to pay costs of Rs.50,000/- to
     the appellant within two months.
iB
         13. We hope and trust that senior officials in future would
     not be totally oblivious of the problems of the humble and
     modest empl_oyees and pass similar orders.

     K.K.T.                                        Appeals allowed.