Holding

The competent authority has jurisdiction to pass an order of removal from service under Section 11(1) of the Act and Rule 27 of the Rules.

Summary

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 challenged the order in the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, which quashed it on the ground that Section 10(m) only permits minor punishments and thus the authority lacked jurisdiction. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the phrase "in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal" in Section 11(1) authorises dismissal or removal, and that Rule 27 expressly permits such removal by the competent authority. Consequently, the order of removal was deemed valid and the High Court's decision was set aside.

Issues considered

The competent authority's jurisdiction to impose removal from service under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules.
Whether Section 10(m) limits the punishment to minor offences, precluding removal.
Interpretation of the term "removal" as a form of dismissal within the statutory scheme.

Legislation cited

Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949s. 10(m), s. 11(1), s. 9
Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955s. Rule 27

Subjects

removal from servicedismissaldisciplinary actionCRPFSection 11Rule 27overstay leavejurisdiction

Judgment

- UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
A

GULAM MOHD. BHAT

OCTOBER 20, 2005

[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.) B

Service Matter:

Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949-Sections 9, JO and I I-Central
Reserve Plaice Rules, 1955-Rule 27-Emp/oyee reporting for duty long after C
sanctioned leave-Competent Authority passing an order of removal from
service-High Court quashing the order of removal on the ground that it is
without jurisdiction under the Act-Correctness of-Held, the competent
authority has jurisdiction to pass an order of removal from service under the
Act for such misconduct. D
Respondent was working as a Constable in Central Reserve Police
Force. The respondent reported for duty long after the sanctioned leave
period without prior sanction. The competent authority initiated
departmental proceedings for misconduct and passed an order of removal
from service. The respondent filed a Writ Petition before High Court E
challenging the order. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition of the
respondent on the ground that the order of removal is without jurisdiction
in terms of section lO(m) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949
read with Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Rules, 1955.

In appeal to the Court, the appellants contended that the F
punishments under section 11 of the Act were in lieu of or in addition to
an order of suspension or dismissal; and that Rule 27 of the Rules permits
the authority to pass an order of removal from service for such
misconduct.

Allowing the appeal, the Court G

HELD: 1.1. The use of words 'in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension
or dismissal', appearing in Section 11(1) of the Act shows that the
authorities are empowered to award punishment of dismissal or suspension
367 H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A to a member of force who is found guilty and in addition to, or in lieu
thereof, the punishment mentioned in clause (a) to (e) of Section I I of the
Act. [373-D)

1.2. Section I I of the Act deals with only those minor punishments .
which may be awarded in a departmenta1 inquiry and a plain reading
B thereof makes it quite clear that a punishment of dismissal can certainly
be awarded thereunder even if the delinquent is not prosecuted for an
offence under Section 9 or Section IO of the Act. Hence, the order of
removal from service suffers from no infirmity. (373-F; 374-D)

Dr. Dattatraya Mahadev Nadkarni (since deceased by his L.Rs.) v.
C Municipal Corporation ofGreater Bombay, AIR (I992) SC 786, State of U.P.
v. Ashok Kumar Singh, [I996) I SCC 302 and Mithilesh Singh v. Union of
India and Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 309, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4950of1999.
D From the Judgment and Order dated 5.8.97 of the Jammu and Kashmir
.High Court in S.W.P. No. 2243 of 1993.

A. Sharan, Additional Solicitor General, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Ms.
Sushma Suri and P. Parmeswaran for the Appellants.
E Ugra Shankar Prasad (N.P.) for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is by the Union of
F India and its functionaries to the judgment rendered by a learned Singie
Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court holding that the order of
removal from service passed by the departmental authorities in terms of
Section 11 (I) Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (in short the 'Act')
read with Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Rules, 1955 (in short the
'Rules') is without jurisdiction.
G
The background facts need to be noted in brief:

The respondent as a Consta,ble in Central Reserve Police Force (in
short 'CRPF') joined the duty at Srinagar after being detailed for duty from
Assam along with a group of fresh trainees. He applied for leave on 18th
H January, 1992 which was sanctioned. He reported for duty long after the
- 369
U.0.1. v. GULAMMOHD. BHAT [PASAYAT,J.]

·• sanctioned leave period. was over on 8th December, 1992. Departmental A
proceedings were initiated for misconduct on account of overstay beyond
sanctioned leave for 315 days without prior permission or sanction from the
competent authority. On 21.6.1993 on the basis of the report of the inquiry
officer, the competent authority passed order of removal from service. The
same was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition in the Jammu B
and Kashmir High Court. By impugned order dated 5.8.1997 a learned Single
Judge held that since the respondent was proceeded against in terms of Section
lO(m) of the Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules, the order of removal is
without jurisdiction. It was observed that Section 1O(m) only provided for
minor punishment and did not provide for the punishment of removal from
service. Accordingly the order of removal was quashed but, however, liberty C
was given to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the
Rules.
l
Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants
submitted that the view taken by the High Court is clearly indefensible. it
was submitted that Section l I did not provide for only minor punishment. It D
provided that the enumerated punishments were in lieu of or in addition to
order of suspension or dismissal as the case may be. Rule 27 clearly permitted ,.
the order of removal from service and no interference by the High Court was
called for. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of
service.
E
The scope and ambit of Section 11 and Rule 27 has been called for
determination in this appeal. A few provisions having relevance need to be
noted. Undisputedly, overstay without sanctioned leave is dealt with in Section
lO(m) of the Act. It relates to lessor offences. Section I !(I) and Rul.e 27 read
as follows:- F
"Section I I-Minor Punishment:

{I) The Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be
prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under this Act, award
in lieu of, or in addiiion to, suspension or dismissal any one or G
more of the following punishments to any member of the Force
whom.he considers to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty,
remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct
in his capacity as a.member of the Force, that is to say:-
( a) ·reduced in rank;
H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A (b) fine of any amount not exceeding one month's pay .and
allowances;
(c) confinement to quarter, lines or camp for a tenn not exceeding
one month;
(d) confinement in the quarter-guard for not more than twenty eight
B days, with or without punishment drill or extra guard, fatigue or
other duty; and
(e) removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in
the Force.

c (Underlined for emphasis)

Rule 27: Procedure for the Award of Punishment-( a) The punishment
shown as items I to 11 in column 2 of the table below may be
inflicted or non-gazetted officers and men of the various ranks shown
in each of the headings of columns 3 to 6, by the authorities named
D below such headings under the conditions mentioned in column 7.
S. Punishment Subedar Sub- Others Const. & Remarks
No (Inspector) Inspector except enrolled
Const. & followers
enrolled
followers
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 c:
9
1 Dismissal or removal from the Force DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt. To be inflicted after
formal departmental
enquiry.
2 Reduction to a lower time-scale of pay, DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt. To be inflicted after
grade, post or service formal departmental
enquiry.
3 Reduction to a lower stage in the time- DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt. -do-
scale of pay for a specified period.
4 Compulsory retirement DlGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt. -do-
5 Fine to pay amount not exceeding one DlGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt. -do-
month's pay and allowances.
6 Confinement in the Quarter Guard - - - Comdt. -do-
exceeding seven days but not more than
twenty eight days with or without
punishment drill or extra guard fatigue
or other duty.
7 Stoppage of increment. DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt. -do-
8 Removal from any office of distinction DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt. May be inflicted
of special emolument in the Force. without a formal
departmental enquiry.

9 Censure Comdt. Comdt. Asst. A Comdt.
Comdt. Or Or Coy
Coy Comdr.
Comdr. Comdt.
10 Confinement to Quarter Guard for nor
more than seven days with or without
punishment or extra guard fatigue or
other duty.
11 Confinement to Quarters lines, camp, Com dt.
punishment drill, fatigue duties etc.
for a term not exceeding one month.

r
U.0.1. v. GULAM MOHD. BHAT [PASAYAT. J) 373
A bare perusal of Section 11 shows that it deals with minor punishment A
as compared to the major punishments prescribed in the preceding section. It
lays down that the Commandant or any other authority or officer, as may be
prescribed, may, subject to any rules mad.e under the Act, award any one or
more of the punishments to any member of the force who is found guilty of
disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of his duty or B
of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force. According to
the High Court the only punishments which can be awarded under this Section
are reduction in rank, fine, confinement to quarters and removal from any
office of distinction or special emolument in the force. In our opinion, the
interpretation is not correct, because the section says that these punishments
may be awarded in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal. C
The use of words 'in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal',
appearing in sub-section (I) of Section 11 before clauses (a) to (e) shows that
the authorities mentioned therein are empowered to award punishment of
dismissal or suspension to the member of force who is found guilty and in
addition to, or in lieu thereof, the punishment mentioned in clause (a) to (e) D
may also be awarded.

It may be noted that Section 9 of the Act mentions serious or heinous
offences and also prescribes penalty which may be awarded for them. Section
I0 deals with less heinous offences and clause (m) thereof shows that absence
of a member of the force without leave or without sufficient cause or overstay E
without sufficient cause, is also mentioned as less heinous offence and for
that also a sentence of imprisonment is provided. It is, therefore, clear that
Section 11 deals with only those minor punishments which may be awarded
in a departmental inquiry and a plain reading thereof makes it quite clear that
a punishment of dismissal can certainly be awarded thereunder even i{ the F
delinquent is not prosecuted for an offence under Section 9 or Section I 0.

It is fairly well settled position in law that removal is a form of dismissal.
This Court in Dr. Dattatraya Mahadev Nadkarni (since deceased by his
L.Rs.) v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, AIR (1992) SC 786
explained that removal and dismissal from service stand on the same footing G
and both bring about termination of service though every termination of
service does not amount to removal or dismissal. The only difference between
the two is that in the case of dismissal the employee is disqualified from
future employment while in the case of removal he is not debarred from
getting future employment. Therefore, dismissal has more serious consequences H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A in comparison to removal. In any event, Section 11(1) refers to Rules made
- .· under the Act under which action can be taken. Rule 27 is part of Rules made
under the Act. Rule 27 clearly permits removal by the competent authority.
In the instant case the Commandant who had passed the order of removal
was the competent authority to pass the order.

B This Court had occasion to deal with the cases of overstay by persons
belonging to disciplined forces. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Singh,
[ 1996] 1 SCC 302 the employee was a police constable and it was held that
an act of indiscipline by such a person needs to be dealt with sternly. It is
for the employee concerned io show how that penalty was disproportionate
C to the proved charges. No mitigating circumstance has been placed by the
appellant to show as to how the punishment could be characterized as
disproportionate and/or shocking. (See Mithi/esh Singh v. Union of India and
Ors., [2003] 3 SCC 309). It has been categorically held that in a given case
the order of dismissal from service cannot be faulted. In the instant case the
period is more than 300 days and that too without any justifiable reason. That
D being so the order of removal from service suffers from no infirmity. The
High Court was not justified in interfering with the same. The order of the
High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed but under the circumstances
there shall be no order as to costs.

B.S. Appeal allowed.
E