Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 434
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Union Of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Santosh Kumar Tiwari – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6135 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.4106/2021)
Decided on : 08-05-2024
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anand Shankar, AOR
The Supreme Court clarified that the punishment of compulsory retirement is a well-accepted method of removing undesirable elements from the cadre without affecting retirement benefits, and it is a facet of control over the Force, which the Central Government has over the Force by virtue of Section 8 of the CRPF Act.
Headnote:
Compulsory Retirement - Central Reserve Police Force - CRPF Act, 1949 [Section 11, 18] - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Head Constable in CRPF, was charge-sheeted for assaulting and abusing a colleague. The charges were found proved, and he was compulsorily retired. The respondent filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the Single Judge on the ground that compulsory retirement was not a specified punishment under Section 11 of the CRPF Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Division Bench of the High Court found no merit in the writ appeal and dismissed it. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that compulsory retirement was a justified punishment under the CRPF Act.
Issues: The issues before the Supreme Court were: (i) Whether compulsory retirement could have been imposed under the CRPF Rules; (ii) Whether the CRPF Rules, to the extent they provide for punishments beyond those specified in Section 11 of the CRPF Act, are ultra vires; (iii) Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement was shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct of the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the punishment of compulsory retirement prescribed by Rule 27 is intra vires the CRPF Act and is one of the punishments imposable. The Court also found no infirmity in the conduct of the enquiry or in the punishment awarded to the respondent.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order of the High Court was set aside, and the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to the respondent was affirmed.
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against the judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack1[High Court] dated 10.12.2020, whereby the Writ Appeal No. 435/2020, preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.01.2020, has been dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed.
Factual Matrix
3. The respondent2[The original petitioner] was a Head Constable in Central Reserve Police Force3[CRPF]. He was charge-sheeted on allegations of assaulting and abusing his fellow colleague. In the ensuing enquiry, the charges were found proved against the respondent. As a result thereof, the respondent was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 16.02.2006. Aggrieved therewith, the respondent filed a departmental appeal, which was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General (P), CRPF vide order dated 28.07.2006.
4. Assailing the order of compulsory retirement and dismissal of his appeal, the respondent filed a Writ Petition (C) No.17398/2006 before a Single Judge Bench of the High Court. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.01.2020 allowed the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the punishment of compulsory retirement was not one of the punishments specified in Section 11 (1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 19494[CRPF Act]. The operative portion of the order of the learned Single Judge is extracted below:
“Thus, this court is of the opinion that the award of punishment by the order vide Annexure 5 not only remains bad, but in the circumstances, the consequential order vide Annexure 7 also becomes bad. In such view of the matter and as the Disciplinary Authority is to reconsider the question of punishment, this matter is relegated back to the Disciplinary Authority to hear the question of punishment, giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass the final order involving the disciplinary proceeding. For a remand of the matter to the Disciplinary Authority, this court observes, the Disciplinary Authority, while reconsidering the matter will also consider other grounds raised herein. For the setting aside of the order vide Annexure 5 and as the matter is relegated back to the authority, the position of the petitioner before passing of the final order shall be restored and for interference of this court with the order vide Annexures 5 and 7 release of the arrears, if any, involving the petitioner shall be dependent on the ultimate outcome involving fresh disposal of the proceeding by the Disciplinary Authority in terms of the directions of the apex court in paragraph 24 of the judgment in the case of Ranjit Singh versus Union of India as reported in (2006) 4 SCC 153.”
5. Aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants preferred writ appeal (supra) before the Division Bench of the High Court, inter alia, on the following grounds:
(i) The charges against the respondent were found proved in the enquiry. They were of serious nature warranting penalty including that of dismissal or removal from service. Compulsory retirement is nothing but a species of removal from service and, therefore, being a lesser penalty than dismissal or removal from service, was an imposable punishment.
(ii) Section 11 of the CRPF Act provides that, subject to the rules made under the Act, the Commandant or any other authority or officer, as may be prescribed, award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal, anyone or more of the punishments specified therein to any member of the Force whom he considers to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty or remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force. Sub-section (1) of Section 18 empowers the Central Government to notify rules for carrying out the purposes of the CRPF Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 18 provides that without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, rules may provid
