Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusDILER SINGH
- Citation
- 2016 INSC 479
- Decided
- 30 June 2016
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- DIPAK MISRA
Holding
Dismissal under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act is permissible and not disproportionate, and the High Court erred by not framing a substantial question of law; therefore the appellate court order is restored.
Summary
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 set aside the dismissal, but the appellate court reversed, holding the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The High Court again set aside the appellate order, deeming the dismissal disproportionate, but failed to frame a substantial question of law under CPC 100. The Supreme Court held that Section 11(1) expressly permits dismissal as a minor punishment, that the punishment was proportionate to the misconduct, and that the High Court erred by not framing the required substantial question. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court order set aside, the appellate court order restored, and the suit dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether dismissal can be imposed under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.
- Whether the disciplinary authority had jurisdiction to award dismissal as a minor punishment.
- Whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct.
- Whether the High Court was required to frame a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure while admitting the second appeal.
Legislation cited
- Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949s. 10, s. 11(1), s. 12(1), s. 9
- Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955s. 27-A(1)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 100
Subjects
Central Reserve Police ForceDismissalSection 11Minor punishmentProportionalityDisciplinary authorityCivil suitJurisdictionCPC 100Service law
Judgment
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 473
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. A
v.
OILER SINGH
(Civil Appeal No.1133 of2016)
JUNE 30, 2016 B
[DIPAK MISRA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Central Reserve Police Force Act, J949- s.J J(1) - Punishment
of dismissal from service under - Proportionality of - On facts, c
CRPF constable went outside the campus-Naxalwadi Area without
the permission of the competent authority - Went to the market,
consumed liquor and quarrelled with civilians - Punishment of
dismissal from service by disciplinary authority in exercise of power
conferred u/s.11 - Jn suit, the trial court set aside the dismissal
order holding that the disciplinary authority not entitled to convert D
charge uls.JJ(J), a minor penalty to major pe1ialty and that it had
;urisdiction to try the suit - Jn appeal, appellate court held that the .
trial court had no jurisdiction to try the suit - In second appeal, the
High Court held that the allegations levelled against the constable
were not of serious nature and did not attract the penalty of dismissal E
- On appeal held: In exercise of power u/s. JJ (]), punishment of
dismissal can be imposed - When member of the disciplined force
deviates from the discipline and behaves in an untoward manner
which is not conceived of. it cannot be said that the punishment of
dismissal is disproportionate and shocking to the judicial conscience
- Thus, the punishment is absolutely proportionate - Further, the F
High Court did not frame any substantial question of law as required
u/s. J00 CPC - High Court while admitting the second appeal should
have framed the substantial question of law - Thus, the order passed
by the High Court set aside and that of the appellate court restored
and the sui( is dismissed - Code of Civil Procedure, J908 - s. J00 - G
Central Reserve Police Force Rules, J955 - r.27-A(l).
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On a perusal of the judgment of the High Court,
it is evident that it has not framed any substantial question of law.
The High Court while admitting the second appeal should have H
473
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.
A framed the substantial question(s) of law which would have been
adverted to at the time of final hearing. [Paras 17, 18)
1.2 The said view that s. 11 of the Central Rescue Police
Force Act, 1949 deals with only those minor punishments which
may be awarded in a departmental 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 u/s. 9 or Section 10, is concurred with.
It is opined that under the scheme of the Act, in exercise of power
under Section 11(1) of the Act punishment of dismissal can be
imposed. [Para 20) [482-F-G; 483-B)
c
1.3 The High Court to reverse the conclusion of the first
appellate Court extensively quoted from the decision of the High
Court rendered in Akhilesfl Kumar. The Division Bench in Akfli/esh
Kumar's case has clearly held that the delinquent employee, being
a member of the Force, could not have left the camp without
D prior permission. It has also opined when a personnel is posted
in a camp, he is not free to move as per his choice even during
the period when he is not on duty. However, as· is manifest, the
Division Bench opined that the imposition of dismissal as a
punishment, which is a major one, could not have been imposed
E . by the disciplinary authority. The said opinion was expressed
without referring to the position of law that has been clearly laid
down in the case of Ghu/am Mohd. Bhat case .. Thus, the basic
premise is erroneous. In the impugned order, the writ court has,
after reproducing the passage from Akhi/esh Kumar's, opined that
the controversy is covered by the judgment rendered by the High
F Court of Calcutta. It is extremely significant to note that the Single
Judge has not even made an effort to appreciate the decision in
Gllltlam Mohd. Bhat case though the same was relied upon by
the first appellate Judge. Thrust of reasoning of the first appellate
court was that a major punishment of dismissal could be imposed
G in law. It is quite unfortunate that the High Court has dislodged
the finding without any analysis but reproducing a passage from
the Calcutta High Court which had not referred. to the ratio laid
down by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Ghulam Mohd. Blmt's
case. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is wholly
unsustainable. [Paras 20, 21) [484-C-D; 485-E-H; 486-A]
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. OILER SINGH 475
1.4 The respondent was a part of the disciplined force. He A
has left the campus without prior permission, proceeded to the
market, consumed liquor and quarrelled with the civilians. It has
been established that he had consumed liquor at the market place,
and it has been also proven that he has picked up quarrel with
the civilians. It is not expected of a member of the disciplined
B
force to behave in this manner. When a member of the disciplined
force deviates to such an extent from the discipline and behaves
in an untoward manner which is not conceived of, it is difficult to
hold that the punishment of dismissal as has been imposed is
disproportionate and shocking to the judicial conscience. As a
member of the disciplined force, the respondent was expected c
to follow the rules, have control over his mind and passion, guard
his instincts and feelings and not allow his feelings to fly in fancy.
It is not a mild deviation which human nature would grant some
kind of lenience. It is a conduct in public which has compelled
the authority to think and, rightly so, that the behaviour is totally
D
indisciplined. The respondent has given indecent burial to self-
control, diligence and strength of will-power. Thus, the judgment
and decree passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the
first appellate court is restored and the suit instituted by the
respondent/plaintiff stands dismissed. (Paras 22, 23, 24] [486-C,
E-G; 487-C] E
Union of India & others " Ghulam Mohd. Bhat (2005)
13 SCC 228: 2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 367 - relied on.
Ram Singh Rai v. Union of India 2003 (1) SCT 523;
Rattan Singh v. Union of India & Others 2003 (1) SCT
59; Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF and F
another v. Akhilesh Kumar 2007 (6) SLR 438; Santosh
Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179:2001
(1) SCR 948; Govindaraju v. Mariamman (2005) 2 SCC
500:2005 (1) SCR 1100; Om Kumar and Others v.
Union ofIndia (2001) 2 SCC 386: 2000 (4) Suppl. SCR
693; Union of India and Another v. G Ganayutham G
(1997) 7 SCC 463:1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 549; Union of
India v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari (2006) 10 SCC 388:
2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 217 - referred to •.
Case Law Reference
2003 (1) SCT 523 referred to Para6 H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.
A 2003 (1) SCT 59 referred to Para6
2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 367 relied on Para7
2001 (1) SCR 948 referred to Para 17
2005 (1) SCR 1100 referred to Para 17
2007 (6) SLR 438 referred to . Paras 20,21
B
2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 693 referred to Para 22
1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 549 referred to Para22
2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 217 referred to Para22
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1133
C of2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2012 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 4578 of 201 O.
Maninder Singh, ASG, Nalin Kohli, Ms. Asha G. Nair, Prabhas
Bajaj, Amarjeet Singh, Ms. Nivedita Nair, B. Krishna Prasad, Advs. for
D the Appellants.
Jasbir Singh Malik, Ms. Usha Nandini. V, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DIPAK MISRA, J. I. The respondent, a constable in Central
E Reserve Police Force (CRPF), was enrolled as such on 1.4.1990. He
was posted in the 23 Battalion where he served continuously
approximately for fourteen years. Subsequently, he was transferred to
61 Battalion where he served for two years. During the second posting
a charge-sheet was served on him alleging that on 22.06.2001 about
F 11.30 hrs. he left the campus without permission of the competent
authority and went to the bazaar and consumed liquor and quarrelled
with some civilians. On being informed, S.l. Sheoji Ram, HC Mahabir
Singh and Captain FiyazAhmed brought him from bazaar to the campus.
On the advice of the competent authority, a medical examination was
conducted on the respondent and as per the medical report given by the
G assistant surgeon, District Hospital, Medak at Sangareddy, it was found
that the respondent had consumed liquor.
2. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a depa1tmental enquiry
was ordered by Commandant 61-Bn. vide Memo No. P-Vlll-8/01-61-
EC-II dated 6. 7 .200 I and the respondent was also placed under
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. OILER SINGH 477
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
suspension with effect from 6.7.2001. The enquiry officer conducted A
an enquiry and on the base of the material and testimony of the witnesses
came to hold that the charges had been proved.
3. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings recorded
by the enquiry officer and came to hold that the charges levelled against ·
the respondent had been proved beyond doubt. Recording concurrence B
with the findings returned by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority
opined that the respondent was not fit to continue any more in the Force
and accordingly in exercise of power conferred under Section 11 (I) of
the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act') read
with Rule 27-A(I) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (in
short 'the Rules') ordered the respondent to be removed from the service. c
It was further stipulated in the order that except the pay and allowances
given to the respondent during suspension period from 7.7.2001 to
12.9.2001, he would not be entitled to any pay or allowances and the
period of suspension shall be treated as such. That apart, it was directed
that medals and awards, if any, that had been received by the de! inquent D
employee during service period shall be forfeited under the provision of
Section 12( I) of the Act.
4. The respondent initiated a civil action by tiling Civil SuitNo.253/
2002/05 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul seeking a
declaration that the orders passed against him by the authorities were E
illegal. The appellants contested the suit by putting forth a stand that
due enquiry was held by the authorities and the charges levelled against
the respondent were duly proved and there was no procedural error in
the enquiry.
5. Learned Civil Judge framed the following issues: F
"1. Whether the impugned order No. P-IIl-8/2001-61 Stha II dated
12-September, 2001 are wrong, illegal, against facts, arbitrary
malatide; against principles of natural justice, null and void and
ineffective against the rights of plaintiff?
2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to tile the suit? G
3. Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain
the present suit?
. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?"
6. While dealing with the issue number I, the trial Court took note of
the fact that the charges were issued against the delinquent officer under H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 4 S.C.R.
A Section 11 ( 1) of the Act, relied on the decision rendered in Ram Singh
Rai v. Union ofIndia 1 and Rattan Singh v. Union of India & Others2
and came to hold that the disciplinary authority was not entitled in law to
convert the charge under Section 11 (I), a min or penalty to a major penalty
and accordingly opined that the impugned order of dismissal was illegal,
null and void. The trial Court further held that it had jurisdiction to try
B
the suit and eventually decreed the suit with costs. It directed for
reinstatement of the respondent plaintiff in service with effect from
12.09.2001 along with arrears of pay and allowances and other
consequential benefits.
7. Being aggrieved, the aforesaid judgment and decree was called
c in question by the department in Civil Appeal No. I I of2009 before the
Additional District Judge, Narnaul who by judgment dated 27.03.2010
reversed the judgment of the trial Court and held that the trial Court had
no jurisdiction to try the suit, and further the judgment and decree passed
by it were not sustainable in view of the decision in Union of India &
D others v. Glmlam Mohd. BJ"'t3.
8. The respondent assailed the defensibility of the judgment of the
first appellate Court in Regular Second Appeal No.4578/2010. Learned
single Judge noted the grounds of challenge, referred to the decision in
Ram Singh Rai (supra) and reproduced a passage from the decision in
E Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF and another v. Akhilesli
Kumar and came to hold that the controversy is covered by the judgment
of the Calcutta High Cou11 rendered in Ak/1i/es'1 Kumar (supra) and
accordingly opined that the allegations levelled against the respondent
plaintiff were not of serious nature which would have attracted penalty
of dismissal from the services. The aforesaid perception led to
F acceptance of the appeal and dislodgment of the judgment and decree
of the first appellate Court and restoration that of the trial Court.
9. We have heard Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor
General for Union of India and Mr. J.S. Naik, learned counsel for the
respondent.
G
10. To appreciate the controversy, it is relevant to refer to the
relevant provisions of the Act. Section 2(c) defines "the Force" to mean
'2003 (I) SCT 523
2
2003 (I) SCT 59
' (2005) 13 sec 228
H '2007 (6) SLR 438
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DILER SINGH 479
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
the Central Reserve Police Force. Section 2(d) defines "member of the A
Force" to mean a person who has been appointed to Force by the
Commandant, whether before or after the commencement of the Act
and in Section 1,3,6,7,16, I 7, 18 and 19, includes also a person appointed
to the Force by the Central Government, whether before or after such
commencement. Section 7 specifies in general duties of members of the
B
Force. Section 8 provides for superintendence, control and administration
of the Force. Section 9 stipulates about more heinous offences. It provides
that a member who commits heinous offences shall be punishable with
transportation for life for a term of not less than seven years or with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years or with
fine which may be extended to three months' pay or with fine to that c
extent in addition to such sentence of transportation or imprisonment.
Section 10 provides for less heinous offences. It states that a member
of the Force who commits such offence shall be punishable within
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine
which may extend to three months' pay, or with both. Thus, the aforesaid
D
provision defines the offences and provides punishment for the same.
11. In the case at hand, we are concerned with the concept of
minor punishments as postulated under Section 11 of the Act. Section
11 of the Act reads as follows:-
"11. Minor punishments. - (I) The Commandant or any other E
authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to any
rules made under this Act, award in lieu of, or in addition to,
suspension or dismissal any one or more of the following
punishments to any member of the Force whom he considers to
be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the
discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a F
member of the Force, that is to say, - ·
(a) reduction in rank;
(b) fine of any amount not exceeding one month's pay and
allowances;
(c) confinement to quarters, lines or camp for a term not exceeding G
one month;
(d) confinement in the quarter-guard for not more than twenty-
eight days; with or without punishment drill or extra guard, fatigue
or other duty, and
H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.
A (e) removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in
the Force.
(2) Any punishment specified in clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-
section (I) may be awarded by any gazetted officer when in
command ofany detachment of the Force away from headquarters,
B provided he is specially authorised in this behalf by the
Commandant.
(3) The assistant commandant, a company officer or a subordinate
officer, not being below the rank of subedar or inspector,
commanding a separate detachment or an output or in temporary
command at the headquarters of the Force, may, without, a moral
c trial, award to any member of the Force who is ·for the time being
subject to his authority any one or more of the following
punishments for the commission of any petty offence against
discipline which is not otherwise provided for in this Act, or which
is not a sufficiently serious nature to require prosecution before a
D Criminal Court, that is to say, -
(a) confinement for not more than seven days in the quarter-
guard or such other place as may be considered suitable, with
forfeiture ofall pay and allowances during its continuance;
(b) punishment drill, or extra-guard, fatigue or other duty, for not
E more than thirty days, with or without confinement to quarters,
lines or camp;
(c) censure or severe censure: provided that this punishment may
be awarded to a subordinate officer only by the Commandant.
(4) Ajamadar or sub-inspector who is temporarily in command of
F a detachment or an outpost may, in like manner and for the
commission of any like offence, award to any member of the
·Force for the time being subject to his authority any of the
punishments specified in clause (b) or sub-section (3) for not more
than fifteen days."
12. At a subsequent stage, we shall advert to the interpretation
G
placed by th is Court on the aforementioned provision. Prior to that, it is
necessary to state in detail the misconduct or misbehaviour in support of
charges framed against the respondent. The same is as under:
"A11icle- I
H That, on transfer of Force No.901342841 Constable Di Ier Singh,
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. OILER SINGH 481
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
from 23 Battalion C.R.P.F. to 61 Battalion C.R.P.F., he reported A
on 28.09.2000 and was posted in C/61. Presently, Force No.
901342841 Constable Oiler Singh is posted at Platoon No.7, Police
Station Jinnaram, C.R.P.F. Narsapur, Medhak, Andhra Pradesh,
which is a Naxalwadi Area. Therefore, keeping in view the
sensitivity of the area, it was necessary for each personnel to
B
take permission for leaving the camp. Despite applicability
(implementation) of these orders, Force No.901342841 Constable
Oiler Singh, on 22.06.200 I at about 1330 hours, went outside the
Camp without permission of any competent officer, which is against
the discipline of force and good orders.
Article-2 c
That, Force No. 901342841 Constable Oiler Singh, on 22.06.200 I
at about 1330 hours left out from platoon No.7, Police Station
Jinna Ram, C/61, C.R.P.F. Narsapur, Medhak, Andhra Pradesh,
which is Naxalwadi Area, without permission of any competent
officer and after going to the market, he consumed very much D
Iiquor (wine) and quarrelled there with many civilians. On receiving
information about this at Platoon, witness No.2,5 and Constable
Nawaj Ahmad brought him from the market under influence of
liquor at about 1500 hours. At about 1800 hours, witness No.4
with one Section handed over it to C.H.M. in Company E
Headquarters. Thereafter at about 2030 hours, he was taken to
.... Singa Reddy's Civil Hospital, where his medical examination
was got conducted. According to the medical certificate, he h11d
consumed liquor(wine). Therefore, the act on his part is against
the worthy orders and discipline of the Force."
F
13. The enquiry officer, as is vivid from the \:nquiry report, found
that all the witnesses had supported the fact that on 22.06.2001 the
respondent had gone out of the camp and in the market he had consumed
liquor and quarrelled with the local persons, and accordingly has
proceeded to hold as under:-
G
"Thus, it is also proved that on 22.06.200 I, constable Oiler Singh
came out of his platoon post without obtaining permission from
any one and consumed liquor, thereafter, he quarrelled with the
local persons in the market and besides above, he by using indecent
language hurled abuses to the personnel present in the camp and
on reaching at company headquarters Narsapur against CRPF H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2016] 4 S.C.R.
A personnel and officers, which is totally against the conduct and
behaviour of a civilized and good constable."
14. In this backdrop, the judgments of the Courts below and that
of the High Court are to be scrutinised. The trial Court by placing reliance
on the decisions in Ram Singh Rai (supra) and Rattan Singh (supra)
B has opined that the punishment of dismissal could not have been imposed
on the delinquent employee under Section 11(1) of the Act. The first
appellate Court while holding that the trial Court has no territorial
jurisdiction also reversed the finding which was rendered in the context
of Section 11 (I) of the Act. In this context, learned appellate Judge
relied on the decision in Glut/am Moltd. Bltat (supra). The High Court,
c as is evident, has not referred to the decision in Glwlam Mohd. Bltat
(supra) but has adverted to a different aspect which is in the relam of
proportionality.
15. It is submitted by Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional
Solicitor General for the appellants that the High Court has not framed
D any substantial question of law under Section JOO of the Code of Civil
Procedure which is absolutely mandatory. It has further been submitted
that the High Court should have applied the ratio laid down by this Court
in Gltulam Mo ltd. Bil at (supra) which defines the operational spectrum
of Section 11 (I) of the Act and also not followed the decision in Akltileslt
E Kumar (supra) to dislodge the judgment of the appellate Court.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, wou Id support
the judgment passed by the High Court on the foundation that this High
Court has ascribed adequate reasons to come to the conclusion and, in
any case, the punishment of dismissal in the facts and circumstances is
F too harsh and shocks the conscience.
17. First, we shall deal with the submission with regard to framing
of substantial question(s) of law. On a perusal of the judgment of the
High Court, it is evident that it has not framed any substantial question of
law. The Court in SantosIt llazari v. Purusltottam TiwarP, has held
G that the High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without
formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and if
it does so it acts illegally and in abnegation or abdication of the duty cast
on Court. The existence of substantial question of law is the sine qua
non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section I 00
of the Code. The said principle has been reiterated in many a decision
H '(2oo 1) J sec 119
UNibN OF INDIA & ORS. v. OILER SINGH 483
[DIPAK MISRA, J .]
including the one in the Govindara;u v. Mariam11utn 6 which has been A
placed reliance upon by Mr. Maninder Singh: In the said case it has
been laid down, the substantial question of law has to be framed for
such a formulation is the sine qua 11011 for exercise of power under
Section I 00 of the Code of Civil Procedure
18. It is necessary to state here that the High Court while admitting B
the second appeal should have framed the substantial question(s) oflaw
which would have been adverted to at the time of final hearing. That is
the comn:Jand of the provision and has been clearly stated by this Court
in number of occasions. We may unhesitatingly state that we do not
remotely get a sprinkle of bliss by ingeminating or repeating the same. It
has been done following the rigoristic concept of 'duty for duty sake' c
with the great expectation that this would be the last one. ,
19. The core issue that emerges for consideration is whether under
Section 11(1) of the Act, punishment of dismissal can be imposed. The
controversy is no more res integra. In Glwlam Mohd. Bhat {supra)
while interpreting Section 11 of the Act, it has been held thus:- D
"5. A bare perusal of Section 11 shows that it deals with minor
punishment 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 made under the Act, award any one or more of the E
punishments to any member of the Fore who is found guilty of
disobedience, neglect of duty or remissness in the discharge of
his duty or 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, F
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.
6. The use of the words "in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or G
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 the Force who is found guilty and in addition to, or
in lieu thereof, the punishment mentioned in clauses (a) to (e)
'(2005) 2 sec 500 H
484 SUPREME COURT REP.ORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.
A may also be awarded."
Andagain:-
"7 .... 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
B punishment of dismissal can certainly be awarded thereunder even
if the delinquent is not prosecuted for an offence under Section 9
or Section IO."
20. We respectfully agree with the said view and opine that under
the scheme of the Act, in exercise of power under Section 11 (I) of the
c Act punishment of dismissal can be imposed. As is seen from the
impugned order, the High Court, to reverse the conclusion of the first
appellate Court, has extensively quoted from the decision of the Calcutta
High Court rendered in Akhilesh K1111uir (supra). Be it stated that the
charges levelled against the delinquent officer therein was the same.
D The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, analysing the Act,
especially Section 1O(m) and various clauses ofthe CRPF Manual, came
to hold thus:-
"It is an admitted position from the factual matrix of the
departmental proceedings that the writ petitioner/delinquent was
E posted in a camp. As per rule of such positing in a camp/lines the
concerned personnel is not free to move as per his choice even
during the period when he is not on actual duty. The discipline of
a camp is completely different in comparison with the posting of
an individual in an office and or in other places outside of the
camp. It is true, by rotation of 8 hours duty is allotted to the
F respective personnel who are attached to the camp and staying in
the camp but that does not mean that when he wil I not be in active
duty, he would be allowed to go outside of the camp without prior
permission. From the relevant provision of Clauses 7.2 and 6.23
as already quoted it appears that absence without leave or
G permission from the camp would invite initiation ofjudicial trial of
the delinquent ifthere is a serious and grave situation or otherwise
a departmental enquiry. Hence, finding of the learned trial judge
that as the delinquent/writ petitioner was not on active duty, the
aforesaid clauses got no effect, is not appealing us for its
applicability to quash the order of dismissal. However, from the
H aforesaid provision of maintaining discipline while a personnel is
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. OILER SINGH 485
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
posted in a camp which requires a prior permission to leave the A
camp even for a short period from the Company Commander, we
. are of the view that the charge· under Article no. l was proved.
Now, on the question of quantum of punishment, namely, dismissal
from service as imposed on such charge, we are of the view that
as under clause 6.23 there is a provision for initiation of the
B
departmental eriquiry and as per decision only a minor punishment
could be imposed and as Section 1O(m) of CRPF Act provides
the minor punishment issue in that field, we are of the view that
dismissal being a major punishment should not have been passed
by the Disciplinary Authority.
8. Considering all the issues, we are quashing the order of dismissal c ,.
as well as the order of confirmation of such by the Appellate
Authority and remanding the matter back to the Disciplinary
Authority under the service regulation· of the delinquent to decide
the quantum of punishment as would be commensurating with the
charge of misconduct as admitted, which invites only minor D
punishment."
21. The aforesaid analysis reveals that the Division Bench has
clearly held that the delinquent employee, being a member of the Force,
could not have left the camp without prior permission. It has also opined
when a personnel is posted in a camp, he is not free to move as per his E
choice even during the period when he is not on duty. However, as is
manifest, the Division Bench has opined that the imposition of dismissal
as a punishment, which is a major one, could not have been imposed by
the disciplinary authority. The said opinion has been expressed without
referring to the position of law that has been clearly laid down in the
case of Gltu/am Moltd. Bltat (supra). Thus, the basic premise is F
erroneous. In the impugned order, the writ court has, after reproducing
the passage from Akltileslt Kumar (supra), opined that the controversy
is covered by the judgment rendered by the High Court of Calcutta. It is
extremely significant to note that the learned Single Judge has not even
made an effort to appreciate the decision in G/111/am Mohd. Bit at (supra) G
though the same was relied upon by the learned first appellate Judge.
Thrust of reasoning of the first appellate court was that a major
punishment of dismissal could be imposed in law. It is quite unfortunate
that the High Court has dislodged the finding without any analysis but
reproducing a passage from the Calcutta High Court which had not
H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 4 S.C.R.
A referred to the ratio laid down by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in
Gltulam Moltd. Bltat's case. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the
High Court is wholly unsustainable.
22. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that
even ifthe charges have been proven, the punishment of dismissal in the
B obtaining factual matrix is absolutely harsh and shocking to the
conscience. It is his submission that the punishment is disproportionate.
The resporrdent was a part of the disciplined force. He has left the
campus without prior permission, proceeded to the market, consumed
liquor and quarrelled with the civilians. It has been established that he
had consumed liquor at the market place, and it has been also proven
c that he has picked up quarrel with t.~e civilians. It is not expected of a
memberofthe disciplinedforce to behave in this manner. The submission,
as has been noted earlier, is that the punishment is absolutely
disproportionate. The test of proportionality has been explained by this
Court in Om Kumar and others v. Union of India1 , Union of India
D and another v. G Ganayutltam 8 and Union ofIndia v. Dwarka Prasad
Tiwari.,. In Dwarka Prasad Tiwari (supra), it has been held that unless
the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate
authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal; there is no scope
for interference. When a member of the disciplined force deviates to
such an extent from the discipline and behaves in an untoward manner
E which is not conceived of, it is difficult to hold that the punishment of
dismissal as has been imposed is disproportionate and shocking to the
judicial conscience.
23. We are inclined to think so as a member of the disciplined
force, the respondent was expected to follow the rules, have control
F over his mind and passion, guard his instincts and feelings and not allow
his feelings to fly in fancy. It is not a mild deviation which human nature
would grant some kind of lenience. It is a conduct in public which has
compelled the authority to think and, rightly so, that the behaviour is
totally indisciplined. The respondent, if we allow ourselves to say so,
G has given indecent burial to self-control, diligence and strength of will-
power. A disciplined man is expected, to quote a few lines from Mathew
Arnold:-
1
(2001) 2 sec 386
• (1997) 1sec463
• (2006) 10 sec 388
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. OILER SINGH 487
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]
"We cannot kindle when we will A
The fire which in the heart resides,
The spirit bloweth and is still,
Jn mystery our soul abides:
Buttasks in hours of insight will'd
B
Can be through hours of gloom fulfill'd.
Though the context is slightly different, yet we have felt, it is worth
reproducing.
24. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree
passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the first appellate court c
is restpred and the suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff stands
dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
..-. order as to costs.
Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Central Reserve Police Force"Sign in to search