2003(2) Supreme 756
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Smt. Kanta Devi -Appellant
versus
Union of India & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2313 of 2003
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4117 of 2002)
Decided on 12-3-2003Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : N.L. Bareja, Chander Shekhar Ashri and Naresh Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General, K.S. Bhati, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
The conclusion of the DB that order of dismissal of deceased Subedar (Inspector) in CRPF by DIG without the approval of I.G. suffers from no infirmity to warrant interference.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. Ansuya Parshad, husband of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "deceased employee") was charged with misconduct and on the basis of a departmental enquiry held under the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (in short the Rules ) framed under Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1955 (in short the Act ) was dismissed from service, in terms of an order dated 26.6.1980 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (in short the DIG ). Said order of dismissal was challenged in a statutory appeal under Rule 28 of the Rules which was dismissed. Matter was taken by a writ petition to the Delhi High Court, and a learned Single Judge quashed the order of removal and directed re-instatement with consequential benefits. The sole ground on which interference was made by learned Single Judge was that the scheme of the Rules is such that either in the case of appointment or promotion, prior approval of the Inspector General of Police (in short the IG ) is imperative. As a natural corollary any termination without approval of the IG, as in the present case, would be bad in law. It was, therefore, held that the order of dismissal passed by the DIG was non est. It was further observed that DIG could not have removed the respondent without prior approval of the IG. Matter was taken in appeal by the Union of India by a Letters Patent Appeal before the same Court. By the impugned order, the order of dismissal has been restored; on the ground that the construction put by learned Single Judge is unsound. Reference was made to Rules 7(b) and 27 to conclude that the IG is not the appointing authority; Commandant was the appointing authority; DIG being an officer superior to Commandant had authority to pass the order of dismissal.

3. In view of the aforesaid background it is unnecessary to deal into the factual aspects in detail, except noting that the deceased employee was appointed as a Naik in Central Reserve Police Force (in short the CRPF ) on 28.9.1959. He was promoted as a Subedar (Inspector) on 30.1.1975, which was made by the Commandant with prior approval of the IG as required under Rule 7(b) of the Rules. Since the employee had died on 10.7.1999 during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the present appellant was substituted in his place.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Division Bench was not correct in its interpretation of Rule 27 of the Rules which prescribes the procedure for award of punishment. For the purpose of appointment or promotion, approval of the IG is necessary. Therefore, requirement of approval; in case of dismissal also is a natural corollary. It was further submitted that in view of unblemished service records of the employee, the punishment of dismissal was highly dis-proportionate looking into the allegations which led to the departmental proceedings. It was submitted that as a consequence of order of dismissal, even the pensionary benefits would not be available to the family of the deceased employee. That cannot be a just proposition if the unblemished service career of the deceased employee is taken note of. As noticed by the Division Bench, the records of the proceedings were not produced on fallacious premises that they were not available. Had the records been produced it could have been proved that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the allegations made. In the proceedings, main allegations were against another person. The only allegation against the deceased employee was that he failed to keep proper watch over the other employees. The allegations were not of such grave magnitude as to warrant dismissal.

5. Per contra Mr. R. N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General submitted that the view expressed by the Division Bench is on terra farma and on a plain reading of the relevant provisions, requirement of approval by the IG as a condition precedent to effectuate an order passed by