LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/union-of-india-ors-vs-dilip-kumar-mallick-20220405/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Union of India & Ors. vs Dilip Kumar Mallick

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
5 April 2022
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 2754 of 2022
Result
Allowed
Bench
Dinesh Maheshwari, M.M. Sundresh
Citation
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 1056 : 2022 INSC 1301
Supreme Court Reports [2022] 2 S.C.R. 1056 : 2022 INSC 1301
Headnote

Service law: Central Reserve Police Force – Punishment of Removal – In the instant case, respondent was removed from the service on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him for offence under ss.341, 323, 294, 337, 506 r/w s.34 IPC before the competent court but, while filling up the verification roll, he concealed the said fact and such an act was prejudicial to the discipline of CRPF – Appellate Authority declined to interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority – Respondent appealed before the High Court, and the Single Judge dismissed the appeal – However, Division Bench of the High Court held that the punishment of removal from service was too harsh and directed the appellants to impose ‘any lesser punishment as deemed just and proper’ – Hence instant appeal – Held: Admittedly, at the time of filling up the verification roll, the criminal case was pending – Respondent cannot feign ignorance about the said case because he indeed surrendered before the Trial Court and was granted bail – He had indeed left the relevant columns in the verification roll blank; and thereby, had been wanting in forthrightness while filling up the verification roll for employment – That being the position, the findings whereby he is held guilty of misconduct of suppression/concealment of material information, cannot be faulted at – In fact, such findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were affirmed by the Single Judge as also by the Division Bench in the order impugned – Division Bench was not justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment – In the given set of facts and circumstances, where suppression of relevant information is not a matter of dispute, there cannot be any legal basis for the Court to interfere in the manner that the employer be directed to impose ‘any lesser punishment’, as directed by the Division Bench of the High Court – The submissions seeking to evoke sympathy and calling for leniency cannot lead to any relief in favour of the respondent.

Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC

471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445 – relied on.

Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644 : [2011] 3 SCR 964 – 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.

Full Judgment Text

The Order of the Court was passed by DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The challenge herein is to the judgment and order dated 25.03.2019 in Writ Appeal No. 223 of 2018, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, in partial disapproval of the order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition(C) No. 24085 of 2018, interfered with the punishment of removal from service, as awarded to the respondent; and directed the present appellants to impose ‘any lesser punishment as deemed just and proper’. 3. The only question f
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

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.

All SC judgments →