IMPORTANT POINT
Punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate to warrant interference by the High Court.

JUDGMENT

A. K. Patnaik, J. —

This is an appeal against the order dated 12.02.2004 of the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in L.P.A. No.600-A 1999 (for short ‘the impugned order’).

2. The facts very briefly are that the respondent was working as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short ‘the CRPF’). A complaint was lodged against the respondent. It was alleged in the complaint that he was detailed with vehicle no.25 to carry patrolling party on Chandel Palel Road but he left the vehicle unattended and absented himself without permission of his superior officer and reported on his own after 20 minutes. It was also alleged in the complaint that while he was on duty, he consumed illicit alcohol and in an inebriated state of mind misbehaved with his superior officer H.N. Singh, snatched his AK-47 rifle and pointed the barrel of the rifle to him and on the intervention of Lachhi Ram, Assistant Commandant, the barrel of the rifle was pointed upward and an untoward incident was avoided. A copy of the complaint was served on the respondent and a disciplinary enquiry was conducted and the Assistant Commandant-cum-Magistrate First Class in his order dated 10.06.1993 found the respondent guilty of charges and convicted him and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. By a separate order dated 10.06.1993, the Commandant also dismissed the respondent from service.

3. Aggrieved, the respondent challenged the order dated 10.06.1993 passed by the Assistant Commandant-cum-Magistrate First Class as well as the order of dismissal dated 10.06.1993 passed by the Commandant in Writ Petition No.555 of 1994 before the High Court. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 09.11.1998. The respondent challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in L.P.A. No. 600-A 1999 and by the impugned order, the Division Bench held that the punishment of dismissal of the respondent was disproportionate in as much as his conviction was till the rising of the court for having committed a less heinous offence. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court directed the appellants to reconsider the nature and quantum of punishment awarded to the respondent and accordingly grant him consequential benefits.

4. Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the respondent was punished with imprisonment for one day by the judgment dated 10.06.1993 of the Assistant Commandant-cum-Magistrate First Class for having committed a less heinous offence under Section 10(n) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’). He submitted that Section 12(1) of the Act provides that every person sentenced under the Act to imprisonment may be dismissed from the CRPF and in exercise of this power the Commandant 22 Battalion, CRPF, dismissed the respondent from service by order dated 10.06.1993. He submitted that the findings in the judgment of the Assistant Commandant-cum-Magistrate in the order under Section 10(n) of the Act would show that the respondent was guilty of grave charges of indiscipline and therefore the Division Bench of the High Court was not right in coming to the conclusion in the impugned order that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate.

5. Mr. J.P. Dhanda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that Section 10 of the Act is titled ‘Less heinous offences’ and it is under Section 10(n) that the respondent has been punished for imprisonment till the rising of the court. He argued that for a less heinous offence and for an imprisonment till rising of the Court, the respondent could not have been dismissed from service. He submitted that in Union of India vs. Parma Nanda1 (AIR 1989 SC 1185), this Court has held that even in cases where an enquiry is dispensed with under the proviso (b) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution if the penalty impugned is apparently unreasonable or uncalled for, having