Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of CISF Constable for Assaulting Senior Officer: Union of India vs. Managobinda Samantaray (24 February 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 February 2022
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Can a disciplinary authority enhance the punishment imposed on an employee after an appeal? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable who was initially penalized with a reduction in pay but later dismissed from service by the appellate authority. This case explores the extent of appellate powers in disciplinary matters and the limits of judicial review in such cases.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, delivered the judgment. The judgment was authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Case Background

The case revolves around Managobinda Samantaray, a constable in the CISF. On the night of January 3-4, 2000, while on patrol duty, he was found sleeping at Watch Tower No. 5. When confronted by Officer ASI/Exe. B. Panda, the constable allegedly abused, misbehaved, and assaulted the officer with a lathi, causing injury.

Following the incident, the constable was suspended on January 4, 2000, and a charge sheet was issued. An inquiry found the charges to be proven. Initially, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of reducing his pay by two stages for three years. However, on appeal, the Appellate Authority enhanced the punishment to dismissal from service. This decision was challenged in court, leading to a complex legal battle.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a minor penalty of reducing the constable’s pay. However, the Appellate Authority, upon reviewing the case, issued a show-cause notice for enhancing the punishment to dismissal. The Appellate Authority then dismissed the constable from service.

The constable challenged the dismissal before the High Court of Odisha, which initially set aside the dismissal order, citing a violation of natural justice. The case was remanded back to the Appellate Authority. Following the remand, the Appellate Authority again dismissed the constable. This second dismissal was challenged again before the High Court, which this time set aside the dismissal as being disproportionate and ordered reinstatement. The Union of India appealed this decision to the Division Bench of the High Court, which upheld the reinstatement. Finally, the Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969, specifically Rule 47(2)(c)(i) and Rule 31(a) and Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001. Rule 47(2)(c)(i) deals with the appellate authority’s power to enhance penalties. Rule 31(a) specifies dismissal as a possible penalty. Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001, outlines the appellate authority’s powers to consider appeals against penalties.

Rule 47(2) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 states:

(2) In case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 31 the appellate authority shall consider, – (i) setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty;

Rule 31 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 states:

31. Nature of Penalties – The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a member of the Force, namely – a)Dismissal;

Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001, states:

(2) In the case of an appeal against the order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 34, or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rules, the appellate authority shall consider – (a) Whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; (b) Whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted on the basis of the evidence on the record ; and (c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is excessive, or adequate, or inadequate and pass orders; (i) Confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty; or (ii) Remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty, or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. (iii) No order imposing enhanced penalty shall be made in any other case unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity as far as may be in accordance with the provisions of rule 37, of making a representation against such enhanced penalty. Provided that – (i) If such enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of rule 34 and an inquiry under rule 36 has not already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall, subject to the provisions of rule 39, itself hold such an inquiry or direct that such inquiry be held in accordance with rule 36 and thereafter on a consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry make such orders as it may deem fit; and (ii)If the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (v) of rule 34 and an inquiry under rule 36 has already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall make such orders as it may deem fit.

The Supreme Court also considered Rule 33(3) of the CISF Rules, 2001, regarding the continuation of suspension when a penalty is set aside on appeal and the case is remitted.

Rule 33(3) of the CISF Rules, 2001, states:

3.Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon an enrolled member of the Force under suspension is set aside in appeal or on review under these rules and the case is remitted for further enquiry or action or with any other directions, the orders of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in [force] on and from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in [force] until further order.”

Arguments

Appellant (Union of India) Arguments:

• The Appellate Authority has the power to enhance the penalty under Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001.
• The High Court erred in equating the appellate power with the power of judicial review.
• The misconduct was serious, involving assault on a superior officer, and the punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate.
• Discipline in the police force is paramount and cannot be compromised.

Respondent (Managobinda Samantaray) Arguments:

• The initial punishment of reduction of pay was adequate.
• The enhanced punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the offense.
• The High Court was correct in setting aside the dismissal order and ordering reinstatement.
• The appellate authority did not consider the application for extension of time to file reply to the show cause notice.
• The appellate authority did not apply its mind and simply approved the draft order prepared by the subordinate staff.
• The appellant was denied reasonable opportunity during the departmental enquiry.

Innovativeness of the argument: The respondent’s argument that the appellate authority did not apply its mind and simply approved the draft order prepared by the subordinate staff is a notable point, highlighting a potential procedural lapse.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in equating the appellate power under Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001, with the power of judicial review exercised by constitutional courts.
2. Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed by the Appellate Authority was grossly disproportionate to the quantum of the offence.
3. Whether the respondent was entitled to subsistence allowance during the period of suspension.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749* to emphasize the limited scope of judicial review and the importance of discipline in the police force. Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 471* was used to highlight that decisions can be overturned if they are perverse. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. & Another v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Others, (2009) 15 SCC 620* was cited to explain the factors to be considered when assessing the proportionality of punishment. Arashdeep Singh v. Armed Forces Medical College (2005 SCC OnLine Bom 198)* was used to reinforce that discipline in the police force is non-negotiable. The Court interpreted Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001 and Rule 33(3) of the CISF Rules, 2001 to determine the scope of the appellate authority’s power and the continuation of suspension, respectively.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to maintain discipline within the CISF, a specialized police force responsible for the security of critical infrastructure. The Court emphasized that acts of violence and assault on superior officers cannot be condoned. The Court also noted that the respondent had not expressed any remorse for his actions. The Court was of the view that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the appellate authority’s decision, which was within its discretionary domain.

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The appellate authority has the power to enhance the penalty.
• The High Court’s power of judicial review is limited and does not extend to acting as an appellate authority.
• The misconduct was serious, involving assault on a superior officer, and the punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate.
• Discipline in the police force is paramount and cannot be compromised.

The Court rejected the High Court’s view that the dismissal was disproportionate, stating that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate authority had considered all relevant factors before enhancing the penalty.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Quantum of punishment is within the discretionary domain and the sole power of the decision-making authority once the charge of misconduct stands proved.”

“Writ jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural error leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice.”

“In the instant case, the respondent was a constable in CISF, a specialized police force responsible for providing security to strategic establishments… Given the nature of the appellant’s force, sense of integrity, commitment, discipline, and camaraderie is paramount.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The appellate authority has the power to enhance penalties in disciplinary matters, provided the procedure is followed.
• The power of judicial review is limited and does not allow courts to act as appellate authorities.
• Discipline in the police force is of utmost importance, and acts of violence against superior officers will be dealt with severely.
• Employees under suspension are entitled to subsistence allowance as per the rules.

This judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining discipline in forces like the CISF and clarifies the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. It also confirms the appellate authority’s power to enhance penalties when deemed necessary.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 18th February 2012, dismissing the respondent from service, is upheld.
2. The respondent is entitled to subsistence allowance @ 50% of his salary for the period from 4th January 2000 till 15th July 2000.
3. The respondent is entitled to his salary as per the order dated 15th July 2000, till the order dated 23rd January 2001.
4. The respondent is entitled to subsistence allowance @ 50% of his salary for the period between 24th January 2001 to 18th February 2012.
5. The appellants shall make the payments within six weeks with interest @ 7% per annum from the date payment was due.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the appellate authority has the power to enhance penalties in disciplinary matters, and the scope of judicial review is limited. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position regarding the powers of appellate authorities and the limits of judicial intervention in disciplinary matters. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, upholding the dismissal of the CISF constable. The Court emphasized the importance of discipline in the police force and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. The Court also directed the authorities to pay the subsistence allowance and salary due to the respondent for the relevant periods.