The petitioner was serving as Constable in 52 Bn of Central Reserve Police Force, Jammu when pursuant to the findings of the Departmental Enquiry held on two Charges viz. (i) that he altercated with No.680384116 Kedar Nath Singh on 17.05.1992 and (ii) that he physically assaulted NK Kedar Nath Singh on 17.05.1992, which were prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Force, he was removed from service vide Commandant 52 Battalion CRPF s order dated 17.07.1993. His Appeal against the order to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Bhubaneswar, however, failed. He thereafter approached the High Court of Delhi where his Writ Petition against his termination was disposed of on the statement of the learned counsel for the Union of India that as Charge No.1 had not been found proved by the Appellate Authority so a fresh final order would be passed by the Disciplinary Authority on Charge No.2 alone. The Court, however, left open Union of India s challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. On reconsideration of the matter the Disciplinary Authority reiterated its earlier decision of petitioner s removal from service even on Charge No.2, vide order dated 25.03.2008.

The petitioner again appealed against the order. This time his Appeal succeeded in part and the punishment of Removal from service was substituted by Compulsory Retirement with Service Gratuity to meet the ends of justice.

The petitioner again appears to have approached the High Court of Delhi questioning the Appellate Authority s order. Having not availed of the statutory remedy of Revision against the order, he was, therefore, permitted to withdraw the Petition. The Petitioner thereafter approached the Revisional Authority but remained unsuccessful. He has now approached this Court questioning the Appellate Authority s order.

The first issue raised by the petitioner s learned counsel questioning petitioner s Compulsory retirement from service is that the punishment awarded to him is illegal, in that, the provisions of Section 11(1) (a) to (e) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, which specify the punishments awardable for Misconduct, do not provide for punishment of Compulsory Retirement.

Learned counsel s next plea is that the petitioner was not allowed proper opportunity of defending the Charge and the Punishment awarded to him was otherwise disproportionate, in that, it was likely to adversely affect him and his family members who were solely dependent for their sustenance on his salary.

Learned counsel for the Union of India contests both the pleas advanced by the petitioner s learned counsel.

To deal with the petitioner s first submission, reference needs to be made to the provisions of Sections 8 and 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, besides Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, which read thus:-

Section 8 Superintendence, control and administration of the Force.---(1) The superintendence of, and control over, the Force shall vest in the Central Government; and the Force shall be administered by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder, through such officers as the Central Government may from time to time appoint in this behalf.

(2) The headquarters of the Force shall be at Neemuch or at such other place as may from time to time be specified by the Central Government.

(3) While on active duty outside its headquarters, the Force shall be subject to the general control and direction of such authority or officer as may be prescribed or as may be specially appointed by the Central Government in this behalf.

Section-11. Minor punishments. (1) The Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under this Act, award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more of the following punishments to any member of the Force whom he considers to be guilty of disobedie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document