Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 1649
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
Debangsu Basak, Md. Shabbar Rashidi, JJ.
The Director General, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Sashastra Seema Bal & Ors. – Petitioner
Versus
Debasish Chatterjee @ Debasish Kumar Chatterjee & Anr. – Respondents
M.A.T. No. 39 of 2022
Decided On : 29-11-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sudipto Kumar Mazumdar, Ld. D.S.G.I, Mr. Ajoy Kumar Singhania, Adv. Mr. Saptak Sarkar, Adv. Mr. S. Kar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jagriti Mishra, Adv., Ms. Ananya Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr. S. K. Dhar, Adv., Mr. Asit Kumar Das, Adv. , Ms. Mrinmayee Das, Adv.
Deduction of pension as a punishment is not prescribed under the Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007, and the disciplinary authority cannot impose it without statutory backing.
Headnote:(A) Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 - Sections 28, 51, 52, and 53 - Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Disciplinary proceeding - The learned Single Judge set aside the order of punishment against the Respondent No. 1, which included compulsory retirement and deduction of pensionary benefits - The Respondent No. 1 challenged only the deduction of pension, not the compulsory retirement itself - The court held that deduction of pension is not prescribed under the Act of 2007, and thus, the order for deduction was set aside while reinstating the compulsory retirement. (Paras 25 and 26)
(B) Disciplinary Authority - The authority has the discretion to impose punishment, including compulsory retirement, but not to deduct pension unless specified by statute. (Paras 22 and 24)
JUDGMENT :
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1. Appellants have assailed the judgement and order dated April 22, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPA No. 774 of 2022. By the impugned judgement and order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition challenging an order of punishment passed in a disciplinary proceeding against the Respondent No. 1. Learned Single Judge has set aside the order of punishment dated June 21, 2021, passed by the Appellate Authority against the Respondent No. 1.
2. Learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the appellants has submitted that the Respondent No. 1 was a member of the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB). A disciplinary proceeding had been initiated against the Respondent No. 1 which resulted in an order of punishment upheld by the Appellate Authority by the order dated June 21, 2021. He has contended that the order of the Appellate Authority concurred with the punishment imposed against the Respondent No. 1 by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority had imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement and directed deduction from the pension receivable by the Respondent No.1.
3. Learned Deputy Solicitor General has contended that, the quantum of punishment so far as compulsory retirement was never challenged by the Respondent No. 1 in the Writ Petition. The Respondent No. 1 had challenged the quantum of punishment relating to deduction of pensionary benefits as imposed by the order of punishment upheld by the Appellate Authority. He has contended that the learned Single Judge had erred in setting aside the entirety of the punishment imposed on the Respondent No. 1 when the entirety of the punishment imposed was not under challenge before the Court.
4. Learned Deputy Solicitor General has contended that SSB was established under the provisions of the Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007. SSB is a central paramilitary force and has been classified as Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) along with other central parliamentary forces established by various statutes. He has referred to answers to a question dated May 7, 2013, given in the Lok Sabha to the effect that, retired CPF personnel are governed by the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. Consequently, the Respondent No. 1 was also governed by the Rules of 1972 as a member of SSB and that, the Rules of 1972 has permitted the deduction of pension in a disciplinary proceeding. According to him, neither the disciplinary authority nor the Appellate Authority had erred in directing the deduction of pensionary benefits as contained in the order dated June 21, 2021. The learned Single Judge had erred in not taking such fact into consideration while setting aside the order dated June 21, 2021.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 1 has contended that, the Respondent No. 1 was appointed on August 18, 1983 as a constable (general duty) and worked with the SSB till June 14, 2021. The Respondent No. 1 had received 16 cash rewards and 2 recommendations for his exemplary services. On October 2, 2021, a subordinate of the Respondent No. 1 had passed urine on the bed of the Respondent No. 1 in a highly intoxicated state. The Respondent No. 1 out of certain grave provocation had pushed the subordinate when such subordinate sustained injuries. A disciplinary proceeding had been initiated as against the Respondent No. 1 in respect of such incident and he was charged under Section 28 of the Act of 2007. He has referred to the chargesheet and contended that only one charge under Section 28 of the Act of 2007 was levelled. The disciplinary proceeding had resulted in an order of punishment dated June 21, 2021. The Respondent No. 1 had preferred a statutory appeal which was dismissed by an order dated January 11, 2022.
6. Learned advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 1 has contended that, his client did not challenge the imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement from service as done by the order of punishment dated June 21, 2021.
