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

                   [2011] 12 S.C.R. 1189

 THE COMMANDANT, 22 BATTALION, CRPF SRINAGAR,                 A
             C/O 56/APO & ORS.
                             v.
                     SURINDER KUMAR
              (Civil Appeal No. 2177 of 2006)
                   OCTOBER 20, 2011                           B

        [P. SATHASIVAM AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

      Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 - ss. 10 (n) and
 12 (1) - Respondent-constable in Central Reserve Police C
Force left his patrolling party without permission while on duty
in the operational area for 20 minutes and returned on his own
- He was found in state of intoxication and got enraged when
Assistant Commandant took him for medical examination -
Also snatched rifle of the Assistant Commandant and pointed o
out barrel towards him - Respondent convicted and sentenced
to imprisonment till the rising of the court u/s 1O (n) and
dismissed from service by order passed u/s. 12 (1) - Writ
Petition by the constable, dismissed by the Single Judge -
However, the Division Bench of the High Court held that the E
punishment of dismissal was disproportionate since the
respondent was punished for imprisonment for a less heinous
offence and only till the rising of the court and directed the
appellants to reconsider the nature and quantum of
punishment awarded to the respondent - On appeal, held: For F
less heinous offences enumerated in s. 10, a person was
liable for punishment with imprisonment and uls. 12(1) every
person sentenced under the Act to imprisonment was liable
to be dismissed from the CRPF - On facts, the acts of
indiscipline for which the respondent had been sentenced for
imprisonment were serious and grave fqr a disciplined force G
- The competent authority was right in imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service - Instant case is not
where the punishment of dismissal was striki!Jgly

                           1189                               H
    1190     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A   disproportionate or where on the face of it there was perversity
    or irrationality- Thus, the order passed by the Division Bench
    of the High Court is set aside.

         It is alleged that respondent, Constable in the Central
    Reserve Police Force was detailed with vehicle to carry
8
    patrolling party but he left the vehicle unattended without
    permission of his superior officer for 20 minutes. He
    consumed illicit alcohol while on duty and in an inebriated
    state of mind misbehaved with his superior officer,
C   snatched his AK-47 rifle and pointed the barrel of the rifle
    to him. The respondent was held guilty of charges and
    convicted and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising
    of the Court u/s. 10 of the Central Reserve Police Force
    Act, 1949. He was also dismissed from service by order
    passed under Section 12 (1) of the Act. The respondent
D   filed a writ petition. The Single Judge of the High Court
    dismissed the same. The Division Bench held that the
    punishment of dismissal of the respondent was
    disproportionate in as much as. his conviction was till the
    rising of the court for having· committed a less heinous
E   offence and directed the appellants to reconsider the
    nature and quantum of punishment awarded to the
    respondent. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant
    appeal.

F       Allowing the appeal, the Court

      HELD: 1.1. It is clear from Section 1O(n) of the Central
  Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 that a member of the
  CRPF who is guilty of any act or omission which is
  prejudicial to good order and discipline is punishable with
G imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year
  or with fine which may extend to three months' pay, or
  with both. Section 12(1) of the Act provides that every
  person sentenced under this Act to imprisonment may
  be dismissed from the CRPF. The word "may" in Section
H 12(1) of the Act confers a discretion on the competent
                                           .
   COMMANDANT, 22,,,BATTALION, CRPF SRINAGAR, 1191
        CIO 56/APO v. SURINDER KUMAR

 authority whether or not to dismiss a member of the              A
 CRPF from service pursuant to a sentence of
 imprisonment under the Act and while exercising the
 discretion, the competent authority has to consider
 various relevant factors including the nature of the
 offence for which he has been sentenced to                       B
 imprisonment. [Para 6) [1195-G-H; 1196-A-B]

      1.2. In the instant case, the acts of indiscipline of the
 respondent have been established beyond doubt by the
 Assistant Commandant-cum-Magistrate. These ac.ts of              C
 indiscipline were obviously prejudicial to the good order
 and discipline and when committed by a member of a
 disciplined. force like the CRPF were serious enough to
 warrant dismissal from service. [Para 7) [1196-C-E]

       1.3. The. Division Bench of the High Court took a view o·
· in the impugned order that as the respondent has been
  punished for imprisonment for a less heinous offence
  and only till the rising of the court, the punishment of
  dismissal was disproportionate. The Division Bench of
  the High Court failed to appreciate that for less heinous E
  offences enumerated in Section 10 of the Act, a person
  was liable for punishment with imprisonment and under
  Section 12(1) of the Act every person sentenced under
  the Act to imprisonment was liable to be dismissed from
  the CRPF. In other words, the legislative intent was that F
  once a member of the CRPF was sentenced for
  imprisonment under the Act, he was also liable for
  dismissal from service. The Division Bench of the High
  Court should have looked into the acts of indiscipline
  proved against the respondent for which he has been G
  sentenced to imprisonment and then decided whether
  the dismissal of the respondent from service was
  dispr-oportionate to the gravity of acts of indiscipline. The
  acts of indiscipline for which the respondent had been
  sentenced for imprisonment were serious and grave for H
    1192      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011} 12 S.C.R.


A a disciplined force. Therefore, the competent authority
  was right in imposing the punishment of dismissal from
  service. [Para 8) [1196-F-H; 1197-A-B]

      Union of India vs. Parma Nanda AIR 1989 SC 1185:
B 1989 (2) SCR 19 - referred to.

      1.4. The instant case is not one of those cases where
  the punishment of dismissal was strikingly
  disproportionate or where on the face at it there was
  perversity or irrationality, the Division Bench of the High
C Court ought not to have interfered with the order of
  dismissal from service. The impugned order of the
  Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. [Paras 9
  and 1OJ [1197 -D·F]

D        Union of India vs. R.K. Sharma AIR ~001 SC 3053: 2001
    (3) Suppl. SCR 664 - referred to.

                          Case Law Reference:
           1989 (2) SCR 19           Referred to.       Para 5
E          2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 664 Referred to.         Para 9

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2177 of 2006.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 12.2.2004 of the High
F   Court of Jammu and Kashmir in LP.A. No. 600-A of 1999.

        Ashok Bhan, Rashmi Malhotra, Sadhna Sandhu, Shreekant
    N. Terdal for the Appellants.

G          J.P. Dhanda, Amrendra Kr. Singh for the Respondent.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order
    dated 12.02.2004 of the Division Bench of the Jammu and
H
  COMMANDANT, 22 BATTALION, CRPF SRINAGAR, 1193
 C/O 56/APO v. SURINDER KUMAR [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

 Kashmir High Court in LP.A. No.600-A 1999 (for short 'the           A
 impugned order').

       2. The facts very briefly are that the respondent was
 working as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force
  (for short 'the CRPF'). A complaint was lodged against the         8
  respondent. It was alleged in the complaint that he was detailed
 with vehicle no.25 to carry patrolling party on Chandel Palel
 Road but he left the vehicle unattended and absented himself
 without permission of his superior officer and reported on his
 own after 20 minutes. It was also alleged in the complaint that     C
 while he was on duty, he consumed illicit alcohol and in an
 inebriated state of mind misbehaved with his superior officer
 H.N. Singh, snatched his AK-47 rifle and pointed the barrel of
 the rifle to him and on the intervention of Lachhi Ram, Assistant
 Commandant, the barrel of the rifle was pointed upward and
 an untoward incident was avoided. A copy of the complaint was       D
 served on the respondent and a disciplinary enquiry was
 conducted and the Assistant Commandant-cum-Magistrate
 First Class in his order dated 10.06.1993 found the respondent
 guilty of charges and convicted him and sentenced him to
 imprisonment till the rising of the Court. By a separate order      E
 dated 10.06.1993, the Commandant also dismissed the
 respondent from service.

       3. Aggrieved, the respondent challenged the order dated
  10.06.1993 passed by the Assistant Commandant-cum-                 F
  Magistrate First Class as well as the order of dismissal dated
  10.06.1993 passed by the Commandant in Writ Petition
  No.555 of 1994 before the High Court. The Learned Single
  Judge dismissed the writ petition on 09.11.1998. The
  respondent challenged the order of the learned Single Judge        G
  in LP.A. No. 600-A 1999 and by the impugned order, the
  Division Bench held that the punishment of dismissal of the
  respondent was disproportionate in as much as his conviction
. was till the rising of the court for having committed a less
  heinous offence. By the impugned order, the Division Bench         H
    1194    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A   of the High Court directed the appellants to reconsider the
    nature and quantum of punishment awarded to the respondent
    and accordingly grant him consequential benefits.

       4. Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned counsel for the appellants,
B submitted that the respondent was punished with imprisonment
  for one day by the judgment dated 10.06.1993 of the Assistant
  Commandant-cum-Magistrate First Class for having committed
  a less heinous offence under Section 1O(n) of the Central
  Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'). He
C submitted that Section 12(1) of the Act provides that every
  person sentenced under the Act to imprisonment may be
  dismissed from the CRPF and in exercise of this power the
  Commandant 22 Battalion, CRPF, dismissed the respondent
  from service by order dated 10.06.1993. He submitted that the
  findings in the judgment of the Assistant Commandant-cum-
D Magistrate in the order under .Section 1O(n) of the Act would
  show that the respondent was guilty of grave charges of
  indiscipline and therefore the Division Bench of the High Court
  was not right in coming to the conclusion in the impugned order
  that the punishment of dismissal from service was
E disproportionate.

        5. Mr. J.P. Dhanda, learned counsel appearing for the
  respondent, on the other hand, submitted that Section 10 of the
  Act is titled 'Less heinous offences' and it is under Section 1O(n)
F that the respondent has been punished for imprisonment till the
  rising of the court. He argued that for a less heinous offence
  and for an imprisonment till rising of the Court, the respondent
  could not have been dismissed from service. He submitted that
  in Union of India vs. Parma Nanda (AIR 1989 SC 1185), this
G Court has held that even in cases where an enquiry is
  dispensed with under the proviso (b) to Article 311 (2) of the
  Constitution if the penalty impugned is apparently unreasonable
  or uncalled for, having regard to the nature of the criminal
  charge, the Administrative Tribuncil may step in to render
H substantial justice and may remit the matter to the competent
 COMMANDANT, 22 BATTALION, CRPF SRINAGAR, 1195
C/O 56/APO v. SURINDER KUMAR [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

authority for reconsideration or itself substitute one of the A
penalties. He submitted that the High Court has relied upon the
decision in Union of India vs. Parma Nanda (supra) and has 1
set aside the order of dismissal without going into the merits '
of the findings of the Assistant Commandant-cum Magistrate
on the charges against Jhe respondent.                           B

     6. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and we find that the respondent has
been imprisoned by the judgment of the Assistant
Commandant-cum Magistrate under Section 1O(n) of the Act
and has been dismissed from service by a separate order of            C
the Commandant, 22 Battalion, CRPF passed under Section
12(1) of the Act. Sections 1O(n) and 12(1) of the Act are
extracted hereinbeloyv:

     "10. Less heinous offences:- Every member of the Force           D
     who

            (n) is guilty of any act or omission which, though not
            specified in this Act, is prejudicial to good order
            and discipline; or
                                                                      E
    shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
    extend to one year, or with the fine which may extend to
    three months' pay, or with both.

    12. Place of imprisonment and liability to dismissal on           F
    imprisonment.-(1) Every person sentenced under this Act
    to imprisonment may be dismissed from the Force, and
    shall further be liable to forfeiture of pay, allowance and any
    other moneys due to him as well as of any medals and
    decorations received by him."                                     G

     It will be clear from Section 1O(n) of the Act that a member
of the CRPF who is guilty of any act or omission which is
prejudicial to good order and discipline is punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with
fine which may extend to three months' pay, or with both.             H
    1196     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 12 S.C.R


A Section 12(1) of the Act provides that every person sentence1
  under this Act to imprisonment may be dismissed from thi
  CRPF. The word "may" in Section 12(1) of the Act confers<
  discretion on the competent authority whether or not to dismis~
  a member of the CRPF from service pursuant to a sentencE
B of imprisonment under the Act and while exercising the
  discretion, the competent authority has to consider various
  relevant factors including the nature of the offence for which he
  has been sentenced to imprisonment.

        7. In the present case, the acts of indiscipline of the
C respondent which have been established beyond doubt by the
  Assistant Commandant-cum-Magistrate are that the respondent
  left his party without permission while on duty in the operational
  area for 20 minutes and returned on his own and he got
  enraged when H.N. Singh, Assistant Commandant, decided to
D take him for medical examination when he found him to be in
  a state of intoxication and he snatched the AK-47 rifle of H.N.
  Singh and pointed the barrel towards him and due to the
  intervention of Lachhi Ram, Assistant Commandant, an
  untoward incident was avoided. These acts of indiscipline were
E obviously prejudicial to the good order and discipline and when
  committed by a member of a disciplined force like the CRPF
  were serious enough to warrant dismissal from service.

         8. The Division Bench of the High Court has taken a view
F in the impugned order that as the respondent has been
  punished for imprisonment for a less heinous offence and only
  till the rising of the court, the punishment of dismissal was
  disproportionate. The Division Bench of the High Court failed
  to appreciate that for less heinous offences enumerated in
G Section 10 of the Act, a person was liable for punishment with
  imprisonment and under Section 12(1) of the Act every_ person
  sentenced under the Act to imprisonment was liable to be
  dismissed from the CRPF. In other words, the legislative intent
  was that once a member of the CRPF was sentenced for
  imprisonment under the Act, he was also liable for dismissal
H from service. The Division Bench of the High Court, in our
 COMMANDANT, 22 BATTALION, CRPF SRINAGAR, 1197
C/O 56/APO v. SURINDER KUMAR [A.I( PATNAIK, J.]

considered opinion, should have looked into the acts of              A
indiscipline proved against the respondent for which he has
been sentenced to imprisonment and then decided whether the
dismissal of the respondent from service was disproportionate
to the gravity of acts of indiscipline. As we have already held,
the acts of indiscipline for which the respondent had been           B
sentenced for imprisonment were serious and grave for a
disciplined force. Therefore, the competent authority was right
in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service.

      9. Moreover, it appears from the impugned order that the
High Court has in exercise of power of judicial review interfered    C
with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was
disproportionate. In Union of India vs. R.K. Sharma (AIR 2001
SC 3053), this Court has taken the view that the punishment
should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly
disproportionate to warrant interference by the High Court under     D
Article 226 of the Constitution and it was only in an extreme
case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality
that there can be judicial review under Articles 226 or 227 or
under Article 32 of the Constitution. Since this is not one of
those cases where the punishment of dismissal was strikingly         E.
disproportionate or where on the face of it there was perversity
or irrationality, the Division Bench of the High Court ought not
to have interfered with the order of dismissal from service.

     10. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the        F
impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court. No
costs.

N.J.                                            Appeal allowed.