Service law – Dismissal from service – Allegation that respondent consumed liquor while on duty and threatened senior officers – CRPF dismissed the respondent from service – Order confirmed by the Appellate Authority – Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent – However, the Division Bench of the High Court reinstated the respondent – It held that dismissal was disproportionate as when the misconduct was committed the respondent was not on active duty – On appeal, held: The charges and misconduct proved against the respondent was of misbehaving with superior and giving threats of dire consequences to the superior, may be under the influence of intoxication – Misconduct was of very serious nature – Charges and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination proved – The penalty of dismissal is not disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong – Reasoning given by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be accepted – Thus, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the penalty and reinstating the respondent set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD 1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal after holding the departmental enquiry and after following the due procedure as required under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 and after having held the charges and misconduct proved. The charges and misconduct held to be proved against the respondent who was serving in CRPF – a disciplined force can be said to be a grave and serious misconduct. The charges and misconduct proved against the respondent is of misbehaving with superior and giving threats of dire consequences to the superior, may be under the influence of intoxication. He also misbehaved and gave threats to the colleagues. The misconduct committed by the respondent is of insubordination also. The misconduct of misbehaving with the superior/senior officer and of insubordination can be said to be a very serious misconduct and cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force like CRPF and therefore, as such the Division Bench of the High Court is not justified in observing that on the proved charges and misconduct penalty of dismissal can be said to be disproportionate. [Para 6][966-G-H; 967-A-C]
2. While holding that the penalty of dismissal can be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong, what is weighed with the Division Bench of the High Court is that as the respondent was found to be in a state of intoxication when not on duty and considering Section 10, he is deemed to have committed a less heinous offence. Whether a member of the force has committed a heinous offence or a less heinous offence as per Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949 would have bearing on inflicting the punishment as provided under Sections 9 and 10 but has no relevance on the disciplinary proceedings/departmental enquiry for the act of indiscipline and/or insubordination. [Para 6.1][967-C-E]
3. Applying the law laid down by this Court to the facts of the case on hand, it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal can be said to be strikingly disproportionate warranting the interference of the High Court in exercise of powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the charges and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination proved, the CRPF being a disciplined force, the order of penalty of dismissal was justified and it cannot be said to be disproportionate and/or strikingly disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. Under the circumstances also, the Division Bench of the High Court has committed a very serious error in interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal imposed and ordering reinstatement of the respondent. [Para 6.3][968B-D]
4. At this stage, it is required to be observed that even while holding that the punishment/penalty of dismissal disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong, thereafter, no further punishment/penalty is imposed by the Division Bench of the High Court except denial of back wages. As per the settled position of law, even in a case where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed and proved the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment/penalty which as such is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. On this ground also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is unsustainable. [Para 6.4][968-E-F]
Union of India vs. R.K. Sharma; (2001) 9 SCC 592 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 664; Commandant, 22nd
Battalion, CRPF vs. Surinder Kumar; (2011) 10 SCC
244 : [2011] 12 SCR 1189 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.