1. Constable dismissed from service for concealing criminal prosecution and arrest under RPF Rules and CCS (Conduct) Rules, despite subsequent acquittal based on alibi. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 2113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Sahab Singh (D) Through Lrs. – Appellants
Versus
Director General, RPF, Rail Bhawan & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13402 of 2015
Decided On : 26-11-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Adv. Mr. Parinav Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mansi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Harshvardhan Lodhi, Adv. Mr. Rakshit Rathi, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh-(ii), Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Adv. Ms. Arcahna Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Adv. Mr. Parinav Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mansi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Harshvardhan Lodhi, Adv. Mr. Rakshit Rathi, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh-(ii), Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Adv. Ms. Arcahna Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
The dismissal from service was deemed disproportionate given the appellant's acquittal in the criminal case and lengthy service, necessitating modification to compulsory retirement with pension benefits.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363 and 366 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Dismissal from service - The appellant, a Constable in the Railway Protection Force, was dismissed post-arrest for involvement in a criminal case. The dismissal was found disproportionate given the appellant’s acquittal and 17 years of service. (Paras 4, 10, 14, 17)
(B) Administrative Law - Service Regulations - The charge against the appellant was that he concealed his involvement in criminal proceedings. Despite due inquiry and an acquittal, the High Court upheld the dismissal, leading to an appeal. The dismissal was deemed excessive as other penalties were available. (Paras 11, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was dismissed from service after being accused in a criminal case despite being acquitted, resulting in a challenging of the dismissal in the High Court where relief was denied.
Findings of Court:
The dismissal disrupted the appellant's long service, advocating modification to compulsory retirement with pension benefits.
Issues: The key issues were the appropriateness of the dismissal given the appellant's acquittal and the treatment of his service record.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that dismissal was disproportionate and could have been moderated, emphasizing the necessity of a fair process in disciplinary actions.
Result: The punishment was modified to compulsory retirement, and the appellant's legal representatives are entitled to pension benefits.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant sought quashing of dismissal or conversion to compulsory retirement due to death; Respondent argued dismissal was proportionate to the established misconduct. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. Suppression of arrest constitutes misconduct, but dismissal is disproportionate given the employee's seventeen-year tenure and subsequent honourable acquittal. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Disciplinary penalties for misconduct must be proportionate to the nature of the imputation and the employee's length of service. (Para 14 , 17 )
5. Dismissal converted to compulsory retirement with pension and arrears payable to the legal representatives of the deceased employee. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
6. Does suppression of arrest and criminal prosecution constitute misconduct for a government servant?
Yes, failure to intimate the department regarding arrest and detention, as well as concealing involvement in a criminal case, constitutes misconduct under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. (Para 14 )
7. Can a punishment of dismissal be modified if it is found to be disproportionate?
Yes, if the punishment of dismissal is found to be wholly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct, especially considering the employee's length of service, the court may modify it to a lesser penalty, such as compulsory retirement. (Para 14 , 17 )
8. Does an honourable acquittal in criminal proceedings affect the proportionality of a disciplinary penalty?
An honourable acquittal, particularly one based on a proven alibi, can be a relevant factor in determining that a penalty of dismissal from service is overly injurious and disproportionate. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
JUDGMENT :
B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2015 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No.6411 of 2012 by which the writ petition filed by the original appellant assailing his dismissal from service was itself dismissed and no relief was granted to him, the present appeal has been filed before this Court.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the instant case are that the appellant was recruited as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force (hereinafter, “RPF”) on 01.08.1994. In the year 2006, the appellant was posted at the Shahdara Post, Delhi.
3. On 13.03.2007, a First Information Report being FIR No. 45/2007 was registered with Police Station Babri, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 363 and 366 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”). The aforesaid FIR was registered against five persons, including the appellant, his father, and his brothers, alleging the abduction of a girl. It was alleged that the appellant’s brother, Rajeev, committed the main offence, while the appellant was accused of abetting and assisting him.
4. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Police filed a charge-sheet dated 06.07.2007 only against the main accused, Rajeev. However, in the year 2010, acting on an application filed by the complainant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “CrPC”), the Sessions Court summoned the appellant. Charges were framed against the appellant on 08.08.2010. Subsequently, due to non-appearance, non-bailable warrants were issued, and the appellant was taken into judicial custody on 29.11.2010. He was eventually released on bail on 01.01.2011.
5. Immediately thereafter, the Respondent-Authorities served Charge-Sheet dated 12.01.2011 upon the appellant under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 alleging: firstly, that the appellant concealed facts pertaining to his involvement in the criminal case, and secondly, he had failed to intimate the department regarding his arrest and detention.
6. An Inquiry Report dated 10.05.2011 was submitted, which, inter alia, categorically noted that on the date of the alleged criminal incident, the appellant was on duty at his post in Delhi. Notwithstanding this finding, the Senior Circle Security Commissioner, RPF, Northern Railway, passed an order dated 24.06.2011 dismissing the appellant from service.
7. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the appellant preferred a Revision Petition, which was dismissed by the Inspector General, Chief Protection Commissioner on 18.01.2012. Aggrieved, the appellant subsequently preferred an appeal before the Director General, RPF, which also did not yield any relief. Consequently, the appellant approached the High Court of Delhi by filing W.P.(C) No. 6411/2012 on 08.08.2012 seeking reinstatement.
8. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the trial in the criminal case concluded. By judgment and order dated 16.11.2013 in Session Trial No. 1457/07, the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, U.P., acquitted the appellant of all charges under Sections 363 , 366, and 376 of the IPC. The Trial Court specifically observed that on the date of the incident, the appellant was performing his official duties in Delhi and was not present at the place of occurrence.
9. Despite the acquittal and the specific finding regarding the appellant’s plea of alibi, the High Court, vide the impugned judgment dated 29.07.2015, dismissed the Writ Petition. The High Court observed that the acquittal was based on technical considerations and held that the Respondent-Authorities’ decision borne out of appellant’s failure to disclose his detention and prosecution called for no interference.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants (legal representatives of original appellant) and learned ASG for the respondents. We have perused the material on record including the impugned order.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that
