Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement Under CRPF Rules: Union of India vs. Santosh Kumar Tiwari (2024)

Date of the Judgment: May 8, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 392

Judges: Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J. B. Pardiwala, J., Manoj Misra, J.

Can a member of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) be compulsorily retired for misconduct, even if the CRPF Act doesn’t specifically list it as a punishment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, examining the interplay between the CRPF Act and the CRPF Rules. This case clarifies the extent of the government’s power to enforce discipline within the CRPF.

The core issue revolves around whether the punishment of compulsory retirement, imposed on a CRPF Head Constable for assaulting a colleague, was lawful. The High Court had ruled against it, stating that the punishment wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the CRPF Act. The Supreme Court, however, took a different view, emphasizing the rule-making powers of the Central Government.

The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud and Justices J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. Justice Manoj Misra authored the opinion for the bench.

Case Background

The respondent, Santosh Kumar Tiwari, was a Head Constable in the CRPF. On June 18, 2005, during Forest Camp Training, he was accused of assaulting and abusing a fellow colleague, M. Devnath. Following an inquiry, these charges were found to be true, leading to his compulsory retirement on February 16, 2006. Tiwari’s departmental appeal against this order was dismissed on July 28, 2006.

Tiwari then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, challenging his compulsory retirement. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed his petition on January 14, 2020, stating that compulsory retirement was not a punishment specified under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. The Union of India appealed this decision to a Division Bench of the High Court, which was dismissed on December 10, 2020, upholding the Single Judge’s order.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court’s Single Judge Bench ruled that the punishment of compulsory retirement was not valid because it was not explicitly listed as a punishment in Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. The Single Judge remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the punishment, while also restoring Tiwari’s position until a fresh decision was made. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, stating that the punishment was not within the ambit of the CRPF Act.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (CRPF Act) and the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (CRPF Rules).

Section 11 of the CRPF Act outlines minor punishments that can be awarded to members of the force. It states:

“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 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, that is to say, — (a) reduction in rank; (b) fine of any amount not exceeding one month’s pay and allowances; (c) confinement to quarters, lines or camp for a term not exceeding one month; (d) confinement in the quarter -guard for not more than twenty -eight days, with or without punishment drill or extra guard, fatigue or other duty; and (e) removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the Force.”

Section 18 of the CRPF Act grants the Central Government the power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Specifically, Section 18(2)(d) allows for rules to be made for regulating the award of minor punishments under Section 11.

Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules specifies the procedure for awarding punishments and includes a table listing various punishments and the authorities competent to impose them. This table includes “compulsory retirement” as a punishment that can be imposed by the Commandant after a formal departmental inquiry.

The core of the legal debate is whether Rule 27, by including compulsory retirement, exceeds the scope of Section 11 of the CRPF Act, which does not explicitly mention it.

Arguments

Appellants’ (Union of India) Submissions:

• The primary argument of the respondent was that compulsory retirement is not listed in Section 11 of the CRPF Act, which is incorrect.
• Section 11 of the CRPF Act is subject to rules made under the Act.
• Section 18 of the CRPF Act empowers the Central Government to make rules, including those regulating punishments under Section 11.
• Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules specifically includes compulsory retirement as a punishment.
• Compulsory retirement is a form of removal from service, which is a permissible punishment under the CRPF Rules.
• The charges against the respondent were serious and warranted a penalty.
• The term “removal” in Section 11 has a wide scope and includes any action that terminates service, including compulsory retirement.

Respondent’s (Santosh Kumar Tiwari) Submissions:

• The punishment of compulsory retirement in Rule 27 is ultra vires Section 11 of the CRPF Act, which is exhaustive.
• The decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat, is not applicable as it deals with removal from service, not compulsory retirement.
• Rule 27 was framed under Section 18(2)(d) of the CRPF Act, which only allows for regulating minor punishments, not introducing new ones.
• Dismissal and compulsory retirement are distinct punishments and cannot be used interchangeably.
• The charges against the respondent were not proven as there was no eye-witness.
• The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority acted mechanically.

The appellants argued that Section 11 of the CRPF Act allows for punishments to be awarded “subject to any rules made under this Act,” indicating that the punishments listed are not exhaustive. They contended that the rule-making power under Section 18 is broad enough to include compulsory retirement, especially since it is a form of termination of service. The respondent, however, maintained that Section 11 is exhaustive and that compulsory retirement is a new punishment not contemplated by the Act, making Rule 27 ultra vires.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement from service could have been imposed upon the respondent by relying upon the provisions of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules?
2. Whether Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules to the extent it provides for punishments other than those specified in Section 11 of the CRPF Act, is ultra vires the CRPF Act and as such inoperable and void?
3. Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the respondent suffers from any procedural infirmity and / or is shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct of the respondent?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and affirming the compulsory retirement of Santosh Kumar Tiwari.

The Supreme Court held that the punishment of compulsory retirement prescribed by Rule 27 is intra vires the CRPF Act, emphasizing that Section 11 is not exhaustive and is subject to rules made under the Act.

The Court also noted that the rule-making power under Section 18 is broad enough to include compulsory retirement, as it is a form of terminating service and is necessary for maintaining control over the force.

The Court cited Union of India v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat, stating that removal is a form of dismissal.

The Court distinguished General Officer Commanding-in-Chief v. Subash Chandra Yadav, clarifying that the rules should supplement the Act and not supplant it.

The Court also highlighted that the term ‘control’ includes disciplinary control, which justifies the inclusion of compulsory retirement in the rules.

The Court found no procedural infirmity in the inquiry and held that the punishment was not disproportionate to the misconduct.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The expression “subject to ” conveys the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provision s subject to which it is made.”

“The delegate cannot override the Act either by exceeding the authority or by making provisions inconsistent with the Act. But when the enabling Act itself permits its modification by rules, the rules made prevail over the provision in the Act.”

“From above , it is clear that ‘control’ is a word of wide amplitude and includes disciplinary control.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain discipline and control within the CRPF. The Court emphasized the broad rule-making powers of the Central Government under Section 18 of the CRPF Act, which allows for the prescription of punishments necessary for effective administration. The Court also considered the fact that Section 11 of the CRPF Act is explicitly “subject to any rules made under this Act,” indicating that the punishments listed are not exhaustive. The Court’s reasoning also reflected the principle that the term “control” includes disciplinary control, thereby justifying the inclusion of compulsory retirement as a valid form of punishment.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was predominantly based on legal interpretations and the scope of the rule-making power, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has affirmed that compulsory retirement is a valid punishment for members of the CRPF, even though it is not explicitly listed in Section 11 of the CRPF Act.
• The Central Government has broad rule-making powers under Section 18 of the CRPF Act, allowing it to prescribe punishments necessary for maintaining control over the force.
• Section 11 of the CRPF Act is not exhaustive and is subject to the rules made under the Act.
• The term “control” includes disciplinary control, which justifies the inclusion of compulsory retirement as a valid form of punishment.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and affirmed the compulsory retirement of the respondent. The writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There are no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

This judgment clarifies that the punishments listed in Section 11 of the CRPF Act are not exhaustive and that the Central Government has the power to prescribe additional punishments through rules made under Section 18 of the Act. The ratio decidendi of the case is that compulsory retirement is a valid form of punishment under the CRPF Rules, as it is within the broad rule-making powers of the Central Government and is necessary for maintaining control and discipline within the force.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India vs. Santosh Kumar Tiwari upholds the validity of compulsory retirement as a punishment for CRPF personnel. The Court emphasized the broad rule-making powers of the Central Government and the need for effective control over the force. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 11 of the CRPF Act, stating that it is not exhaustive and is subject to the rules made under the Act. The Court’s ruling reinforces the government’s authority to maintain discipline and efficiency within the CRPF.