SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 33

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10499 of 2022
Decided on : 16-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv. Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that conclusion which authority reaches is necessarily correct in eye of Court.

Headnote:

Service Law – Removal – [Rule 36 of CISF Rules 2001] – Single Bench of High Court had committed error in interfering with order passed by respondents-authorities – Having regard to gravity of established misconduct, punishing authority had power and jurisdiction to impose punishment – Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that conclusion which authority reaches is necessarily correct in eye of Court – Petitioner having been found to have committed gross misconduct right at threshold of entering into disciplined force like CISF, and respondent authorities having passed order of his removal from service after following due process of law and without actuated by malafides, court not inclined to exercise its limited jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution – Petition dismissed. (Paras 9, 10 and 13)

Facts of the case:

Present special leave petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2021 passed by High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, whereby Division Bench has allowed the D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 637 of 2021 filed by respondents-Union of India (appellants before the Division Bench), and has set aside the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by Single Bench, which had allowed the Civil Writ Petition No. 17475 of 2018 filed by present petitioner (respondent before the Division Bench).

Findings of Court:

Division Bench of the High Court had rightly set aside the order passed by Single Bench, which had wrongly interfered with order of removal passed by the respondent authorities against petitioner.

Result : SLP dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. The present special leave petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, whereby the Division Bench has allowed the D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 637 of 2021 filed by the respondents-Union of India (appellants before the Division Bench), and has set aside the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the Single Bench, which had allowed the Civil Writ Petition No. 17475 of 2018 filed by the present petitioner (respondent before the Division Bench).

2. The present petitioner was appointed on the post of constable in the CISF on 03.11.2007. In April, 2009 the petitioner received a notice/Memorandum of charge under the Rule 36 of CISF Rules 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “the said Rules”) from the office of Commandant Discipline, CISF in which it was alleged that the petitioner at the time of submitting verification of his character certificate had suppressed the fact that he was involved in a criminal case for the offence under sections 323, 324 and 341 of IPC in respect of which an FIR being No. 153/2003 was registered against him on 21.10.2003; and that on the Investigating Officer in the said proceedings having submitted the charge-sheet before the concerned Court, the case was pending for trial before the said Court when the character certificate was submitted by the petitioner to the CISF authorities. It was also stated therein that since the act of suppression of information regarding pendency of the criminal litigation in his character certificate filed along with the appointment letter, was under the category of gross misconduct and indiscipline, he was not eligible to be appointed in a very disciplined police force i.e. CISF. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. During the course of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner accepted his mistake. The Commandant Discipline, CISF, keeping in view the young age and future prospects of the petitioner, imposed punishment of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs. 6320-6070/-in the pay band of Rs.5200-20,200/-with grade pay. However, on 06.10.2009, the Deputy Inspector General (West Zone), Air Port Head Quarter – Navi Mumbai – suo motu took the cognizance of the matter revising the order dated 11.07.2009 and remitted the matter back for fresh departmental enquiry against the petitioner invoking Rule 54 of CISF Rules, 2001. The said departmental enquiry culminated into the removal of the petitioner from service on 09.03.2010, against which the petitioner had filed a departmental appeal, however, the said appeal came to be dismissed by the appellate authority vide the order dated 23.06.2010. The revision petition filed by the petitioner before the competent authority assailing the said order dated 23.06.2010 also came to be dismissed by the Revisional Authority vide the order dated 21.12.2010.

3. Being aggrieved by the said orders, passed by the various authorities of CISF, the petitioner filed a writ petition being No. 8190 of 2012 before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur. The Single Bench vide order dated 16.02.2018 set aside the order of removal passed against the petitioner and directed the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the appointing authority for reconsideration of his case in the context of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors, (2016) 8 SCC 471 and directed the appointing authority to decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order with reference to the said judgment. The Commandant CISF Unit CSIA, Mumbai after considering the representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment in case of Avtar Singh (supra), held that the CISF being an Armed Force of Union of India, which is deployed in sensitive sectors, the force personnel are required to maintain discipline of the highest order, and that the in


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top