Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of CRPF Constable for Misconduct: Union of India vs. Sunil Kumar (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 19 January 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 43

Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a member of a disciplined force, like the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), be dismissed for misconduct even if the offense was committed while not on active duty? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, overturning a High Court decision that had favored a lenient view. This case highlights the importance of discipline within the armed forces and the extent of judicial review in such matters. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes that misconduct, especially insubordination and misbehavior with superiors, cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force, regardless of whether the individual was on active duty. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M. R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

The respondent, a constable in the CRPF, was subjected to a departmental inquiry following allegations of misconduct. The charges stemmed from an incident on August 26, 2002, where the constable, while on duty, allegedly consumed country liquor and misbehaved with senior officers, including Shri Ajay Mishra, Dy. Comdt. (Adjutant), Dr. J.N. Trivedi, SMO, and Sub Inspector Ramesh Chandra. He was also accused of threatening these officers. Following the inquiry, the disciplinary authority dismissed the constable from service, a decision that was upheld by the Appellate Authority.

The constable then filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was initially dismissed by a single judge. However, a Division Bench of the High Court later overturned the dismissal, ordering his reinstatement with notional benefits but without back wages. The High Court reasoned that since the constable was not on active duty when the misconduct occurred, the offense was less heinous and did not warrant dismissal. This decision led to the Union of India appealing to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Legal Framework

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

• Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949: This section empowers the disciplinary authority to impose penalties, including dismissal, on members of the force for misconduct.
• Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955: This rule outlines the procedure for conducting departmental inquiries against CRPF personnel.
• Section 9 of the CRPF Act, 1949: This section deals with offenses related to mutiny, desertion, etc., and prescribes punishments for such offenses.
• Section 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949: This section specifies punishments for less heinous offenses, such as being intoxicated while not on duty. It states, “any member of the Force who is in a state of intoxication when not on duty shall be deemed to have committed a less heinous offence.”

The High Court had considered Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949, to conclude that the constable’s misconduct was a less heinous offense because he was not on active duty, thus warranting a lesser penalty. However, the Supreme Court clarified that while Sections 9 and 10 are relevant for determining punishments for specific offenses, they do not limit the disciplinary authority’s power under Section 11 to impose dismissal for serious misconduct.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Union of India):

• The penalty of dismissal was imposed after a proper departmental inquiry, where the charges of misconduct were proven against the respondent.
• The misconduct was serious, involving misbehavior with senior officers, threats, and insubordination, which cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force like the CRPF.
• The High Court erred in relying on Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949, which relate to punishments for specific offenses and not to disciplinary proceedings under Section 11.
• The High Court should not have interfered with the dismissal, as the punishment was not strikingly disproportionate to the misconduct.
• The Supreme Court’s decision in Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF vs. Surinder Kumar; (2011) 10 SCC 244, supports the view that even for a less heinous offense under Section 10(n), a CRPF personnel can be dismissed if their conduct is prejudicial to good order and discipline.

Arguments by the Respondent (Constable Sunil Kumar):

• The misconduct occurred while the respondent was not on active duty, making it a less heinous offense under Section 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949.
• The penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of the offense.
• The respondent had served for 11 years, and a lenient view should have been taken.

[TABLE] of Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of penalty of dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority and reinstating the respondent in service.
2. Whether the High Court was right in holding that the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong, considering Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949.
3. Whether the misconduct of misbehaving with the superior/senior officer and of insubordination can be said to be a very serious misconduct and cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force like CRPF.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF vs. Surinder Kumar; (2011) 10 SCC 244: The Supreme Court held that even if a CRPF personnel is awarded imprisonment for a less heinous offense under Section 10(n), they can be dismissed if their conduct is prejudicial to good order and discipline. This case was used to emphasize that the nature of the offense does not preclude dismissal if the conduct is detrimental to the force. The High Court should be slow in interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate.
• Union of India Vs. Ram Karan; (2022) 1 SCC 373: This case was cited to support the argument that the consideration of heinous or less heinous offenses is relevant for imprisonment under Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949, but not for imposing penalties under Section 11.
• Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma; (2001) 9 SCC 592: This case was cited to emphasize that the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but strikingly disproportionate to warrant interference by the High Court.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949: This section empowers the disciplinary authority to impose penalties, including dismissal, on members of the force for misconduct.
• Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955: This rule outlines the procedure for conducting departmental inquiries against CRPF personnel.
• Section 9 of the CRPF Act, 1949: This section deals with offenses related to mutiny, desertion, etc., and prescribes punishments for such offenses.
• Section 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949: This section specifies punishments for less heinous offenses, such as being intoxicated while not on duty.

[TABLE] of Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF vs. Surinder Kumar; (2011) 10 SCC 244*: The Court followed this authority to support its view that even for a less heinous offense, dismissal is justified if the conduct is prejudicial to discipline.
• Union of India Vs. Ram Karan; (2022) 1 SCC 373*: The Court relied on this case to distinguish between the application of Sections 9 and 10 for imprisonment and Section 11 for disciplinary penalties.
• Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma; (2001) 9 SCC 592*: The Court cited this authority to emphasize that judicial review should only intervene in cases of strikingly disproportionate punishment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain discipline within the CRPF. The Court emphasized that misconduct, especially insubordination and misbehavior with superiors, cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force. The Court also clarified that the nature of the offense (whether heinous or less heinous) under Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949, is relevant for imprisonment but not for disciplinary proceedings under Section 11. The Court also noted that the High Court had not imposed any further penalty after holding the punishment of dismissal as disproportionate, which is not as per the settled position of law.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the misconduct was a less heinous offense because the constable was not on active duty but rejected this argument. The Court reasoned that the nature of the offense does not preclude dismissal for serious misconduct, especially in a disciplined force. The Court also considered that the High Court had not imposed any further penalty after holding the punishment of dismissal as disproportionate and that the matter should have been remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s interference was not justified and that the dismissal was not strikingly disproportionate to the misconduct. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline in the CRPF and the seriousness of the charges against the constable.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice M. R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar. There were no dissenting opinions.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The charges and misconduct held to be proved against the respondent who was serving in CRPF – a disciplined force can be said to be a grave and serious misconduct.”

“The misconduct committed by the respondent is of insubordination also. The misconduct of misbehaving with the superior/senior officer and of insubordination can be said to be a very serious misconduct and cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force like CRPF.”

“As per the settled position of law, even in a case where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed and proved the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment/penalty which as such is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority.”

Key Takeaways

• Discipline within armed forces is paramount, and misconduct, especially insubordination and misbehavior with superiors, cannot be tolerated.
• The nature of an offense (heinous or less heinous) under Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949, is relevant for imprisonment but not for disciplinary proceedings under Section 11.
• Judicial review of disciplinary actions should only intervene in cases of strikingly disproportionate punishment.
• High Courts should not interfere with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate.
• If the punishment is found to be disproportionate, the matter should be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment.

This judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining discipline in the armed forces and sets a precedent for how disciplinary actions should be reviewed by the courts. It also clarifies the scope of Sections 9, 10, and 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949. This case will likely impact future cases involving disciplinary actions against members of the armed forces, emphasizing that serious misconduct can lead to dismissal regardless of whether the individual was on active duty.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than quashing and setting aside the order of the High Court and restoring the order of dismissal.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the penalty of dismissal imposed on a member of the CRPF for serious misconduct, including misbehavior and insubordination, is justified and does not warrant interference by the High Court, even if the misconduct occurred while not on active duty. The judgment clarifies that Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949, which deal with punishments for specific offenses, do not limit the disciplinary authority’s power under Section 11 to impose dismissal for serious misconduct. This case reinforces the principle that discipline within the armed forces is paramount and that judicial review of disciplinary actions should only intervene in cases of strikingly disproportionate punishment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India vs. Const Sunil Kumar overturns the High Court’s order and upholds the dismissal of the CRPF constable. The Court emphasized that misconduct, especially insubordination and misbehavior with superiors, cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force like the CRPF, regardless of whether the individual was on active duty. The judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining discipline within the armed forces and clarifies the scope of judicial review in such matters. This case serves as a significant precedent for future cases involving disciplinary actions against members of the armed forces.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories:

• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)
• Misconduct
• Insubordination
• Judicial Review
• Section 11, CRPF Act, 1949
• Section 10, CRPF Act, 1949

FAQ

Q: Can a CRPF personnel be dismissed for misconduct even if they were not on active duty?

A: Yes, the Supreme Court has clarified that serious misconduct, such as misbehavior and insubordination, can lead to dismissal, regardless of whether the individual was on active duty.

Q: What is the significance of Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949, in disciplinary proceedings?

A: Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949, are relevant for determining punishments for specific offenses, such as mutiny or being intoxicated while not on duty. However, they do not limit the disciplinary authority’s power under Section 11 to impose dismissal for serious misconduct.

Q: What does the Supreme Court consider as “strikingly disproportionate” punishment?

A: The Supreme Court has stated that judicial review should only intervene in cases where the punishment is not merely disproportionate but strikingly disproportionate to the misconduct. This means that the punishment must be so excessive that it is perverse or irrational on the face of it.

Q: What should a High Court do if it finds a punishment to be disproportionate?

A: If a High Court finds a punishment to be disproportionate, it should remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority for imposing an appropriate punishment. It should not impose a punishment of its own.

Q: What are the key implications of this judgment for members of the armed forces?

A: This judgment emphasizes the importance of maintaining discipline within the armed forces. It clarifies that serious misconduct can lead to dismissal, regardless of whether the individual was on active duty. It also reinforces that judicial review of disciplinary actions should only intervene in cases of strikingly disproportionate punishment.