Service law: Departmental inquiries – Quantum of punishment – Judicial review of – On facts, allegations against constable of CRPF that he threatened the Doctor-complainant, misbehaved and abused and injured him and made false allegations against him of sexual harassment to his wife – Disciplinary inquiry against the Constable – Imposition of penalty of removal from service confirmed by the appellate/revisional authority – However , the High Court substituted the penalty of removal from service with confinement of the constable from 1.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. in quarter guard jail – On appeal, held: It was the disciplinary authority, or the appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment to be given to the delinquent employee – Keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct committed by such an employee, it is not open for the Courts to assume and usurp the function of the disciplinary authority – Even in cases where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court, normally the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the question of imposition of penalty – Scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment is available only when the penalty imposed appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct that the Courts would frown upon – Even in such a case, after setting aside the penalty order, it is to be left to the disciplinary/appellate authority to take a call and it is not for the Court to substitute its decision by prescribing the quantum of punishment – However, it is only in rare and exceptional cases where the court might substitute its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishment that too after assigning cogent reasons – Interference made by the High Court is in a cavalier manner while recording the finding of penalty to be disproportionate without taking into consideration the seriousness of the misconduct committed by the respondent which is unpardonable and not sustainable in law – High Court overlooked the Scheme of the 1949 Act, thus, the interference made by the High Court in substituting punishment is unsustainable and set aside – Central Reserve Force Police Act, 1949 – ss. 9, 10, 11 – Central Reserve Force Police Rules 1955 – r. 27.
Removal and dismissal from service – Difference between – Held: Both stand on the same footing and both terminate the relationship of employer/employee – Only difference between the two is that in the case of dismissal, it precludes the employee from seeking future employment in the Government while in the case of removal, he is not disqualified from any future employment.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The scheme of Section 11 of the Central Reserve Force Police Act, 1949 mandates that the competent authority may, subject to rules made thereunder, award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more punishment if found guilty of misconduct in his capacity as member of the force. The use of words ‘in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal’, appearing in Section 11(1) clearly indicates that the authorities mentioned therein are empowered to award punishment of suspension or dismissal to member of the force who is found guilty and in addition to, or in lieu thereof, the punishment mentioned in clause (a) to (e) may also be awarded. [Para 15, 16][313-B-D]
1.2 More heinous offences or less heinous offences prescribe penalty of sentence of imprisonment if member of the force is found guilty. At the same time, Section 11 is clear and unambiguous and prescribe those minor punishments which the competent authority may award in a departmental inquiry in lieu of or in addition to suspension or dismissal any one or more of the punishments to member of the force as referred under clauses
(a) to (e) of Section 11(1) of the Act 1949 even if the member has not been prosecuted for an offence under Section 9 or Section 10 of the Act. [Para 17][313-D-E]
1.3 Removal and dismissal from service stand on the same footing and both terminate the relationship of employer/employee. The only difference between the two is that in the case of dismissal, it precludes the employee from seeking future employment in the Government while in the case of removal, he is not disqualified from any future employment. By virtue of an explanation appended to Rule 27 of the scheme of Central Reserve Force Police Rules 1955, the rule making authority has made it clear that dismissal of a member of the force precludes him from being re-employed in Government service, while removal of any such member from the force shall not be disqualification, for any future employment (other than an employment in the Central Reserve Police Force) under the Government. [Para 18][313-F-G]
1.4 In the instant case, the respondent has been punished with penalty of removal from service after the charges levelled against him stood proved by the disciplinary authority in a departmental inquiry held against him after going through the procedure prescribed under Rule 27 of the Rules 1955. Such nature of minor punishment of removal from service could be in addition to dismissal as being provided under Section 11 of the Act 1949. Section 11 of the Act 1949 has been completely overlooked by the High Court while examining as to whether the punishment of removal from service could be inflicted in lieu of or in addition to dismissal from service to member of the force, if the misconduct stands proved in the course of disciplinary inquiry and after it was confirmed by the High Court under the impugned judgment. [Para 19, 20][313-H; 314-A-C]
1.5 The nature of allegations against the respondent are indeed grave in nature as the respondent not only threatened the Doctor-complainant but has misbehaved and abused and injured him and made false allegations against him of sexual harassment to his wife. Such a nature of misconduct which has been committed by the respondent once stand proved is unpardonable and if the authority has considered it appropriate to punish him with penalty of removal from service by an Order and confirmed by the appellate/revisional authority and by the High Court in the impugned judgment leaves no sympathy for retention in service and that too in a discipline force like CRPF. [Para 21][314-C-E]
1.6 The well ingrained principle of law is that it is the disciplinary authority, or the appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment to be given to the delinquent employee. Keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct committed by such an employee, it is not open for the Courts to assume and usurp the function of the disciplinary authority. [Para 22][314-E-F]
1.7 Even in cases where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court, normally the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the question of imposition of penalty. The scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment is available but with a limited scope. It is only when the penalty imposed appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct that the Courts would frown upon. Even in such a case, after setting aside the penalty order, it is to be left to the disciplinary/appellate authority to take a call and it is not for the Court to substitute its decision by prescribing the quantum of punishment. However, it is only in rare and exceptional cases where the court might to shorten the litigation may think of substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by the competent authority that too after assigning cogent reasons. [Para 23][314F-H; 315-A-B]
1.8 Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the High Court, erred in interfering with the punishment, which could lawfully be imposed by the departmental authorities for his proven misconduct. The High Court should not have substituted its own discretion for that of the authority. What punishment was required to be imposed, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was a matter which fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority and the interference made by the High Court is in a cavalier manner while recording the finding of penalty to be disproportionate without taking into consideration the seriousness of the misconduct committed by the respondent which is unpardonable and not sustainable in law. [Para 26][316F-G]
1.9 In the instant case, the disciplinary matters of members of the force for minor punishments are being governed under Section 11 of the Act 1949 and if any nature of more heinous offence/less heinous offence being committed, if found proved, member of the force shall be punishable for imprisonment for a specified term as being referred to under Section 9 and Section
10 of the Act 1949 and at the same time, dismissal and removal from service are being considered to be the minor punishments as reflected from Section 11(1) of the Act 1949. If the allegation is found proved, the competent authority may award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more of punishments to a member of the force whom he considers to be guilty of disobedience, neglect or duty, or remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct with confinement in the quarter-guard or removal as indicated under clauses (d) and
(e) of Section 11(1) of the Act 1949. [Para 28][317-G-H; 318-AB]
1.10 The scheme of the Act 1949 of which reference has been made was completely overlooked by the High Court and while keeping in mind the standards of examining the misconduct of a civil servant, interference has been made in the quantum of punishment which may not apply to member of the discipline force and, the interference made by the High Court in substituting punishment in the instant case is unsustainable and is set aside. [Para 29][318-B-D]
Union of India and Others v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat. (2005) 13 SCC 228 : [2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 367; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others (1995) 6 SCC
749 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 644; Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) and Another v. Rajendra Singh (2013) 12 SCC
372 : [2013] 17 SCR 309 – 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.