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 552
Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a High Court interfere with a disciplinary authority’s decision to dismiss a member of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) for misconduct? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a CRPF constable who was dismissed for misbehavior and insubordination. The core issue was whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the dismissal order, deeming it disproportionate to the offense. The bench, comprising Justices M. R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The respondent, a constable in the CRPF, was subjected to a departmental inquiry following allegations of misconduct. The charges included misbehaving with senior officers, including Shri Ajay Mishra, Dy. Comdt., Dr. J.N. Trivedi, SMO, and Sub Inspector Ramesh Chandra, while under the influence of alcohol. The incident occurred on August 26, 2002, while he was on duty. Specifically, he was accused of consuming country liquor, misbehaving with superiors, and threatening them with dire consequences. The disciplinary authority, after due process under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Rules, 1955, dismissed him from service. This decision 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 overturned the dismissal, ordering his reinstatement with notional benefits but without back wages. The High Court reasoned that the constable was not on active duty when the misconduct occurred, and thus the offense was less heinous, making the dismissal disproportionate. This decision led the Union of India to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following sections of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949:

• Section 9, CRPF Act, 1949: Deals with offenses that are considered heinous.
• Section 10, CRPF Act, 1949: Addresses offenses that are considered less heinous. It states that a member of the force who is in a state of intoxication when not on duty is deemed to have committed a less heinous offense.
• Section 11, CRPF Act, 1949: Empowers the disciplinary authority to impose penalties, including dismissal, for misconduct.

The Court noted that while Sections 9 and 10 relate to the nature of offenses (heinous or less heinous) and their corresponding punishments, Section 11 provides the authority to impose penalties for disciplinary reasons. The High Court had relied on Sections 9 and 10 to argue that the offense was less heinous and the dismissal was disproportionate, but the Supreme Court clarified that the nature of the offense under Sections 9 and 10 does not limit the disciplinary power under Section 11.

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 respondent’s actions, including misbehaving with and threatening senior officers while intoxicated, constituted serious misconduct unbecoming of a member of 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 imprisonment, to determine the proportionality of the dismissal under Section 11.
• The misconduct of insubordination and threatening superiors cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force.
• The High Court should not interfere with the punishment of dismissal unless it is strikingly disproportionate, which was not the case here.
• Relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ram Karan; (2022) 1 SCC 373.
• Relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF Vs. Surinder Kumar; (2011) 10 SCC 244, to argue that even for a less heinous offense, a CRPF personnel can be dismissed if the conduct is prejudicial to good order and discipline.

Arguments by the Respondent (Constable Sunil Kumar):

• The misconduct occurred when the respondent was not on active duty.
• As per Section 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949, being intoxicated when not on duty is considered a less heinous offense.
• The penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of the offense.
• A lenient view should be taken considering his 11 years of service.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of penalty of dismissal and ordering reinstatement of the respondent.
2. Whether the High Court was right in holding that the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Union of India Vs. Ram Karan; (2022) 1 SCC 373: This case was cited to emphasize that the considerations under Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949, which relate to imprisonment, do not govern the imposition of penalties under Section 11, which deals with disciplinary actions.
• Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF Vs. Surinder Kumar; (2011) 10 SCC 244: The Court relied on this case to highlight that even for a less heinous offense, a CRPF personnel can be dismissed if their conduct is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the force. It also reiterated that the High Court should be slow in interfering with the punishment of dismissal unless it is strikingly disproportionate.
• Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma; (2001) 9 SCC 592: This case was cited to reinforce that judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited, and interference is only warranted when the punishment is strikingly disproportionate.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 9, CRPF Act, 1949: Pertains to heinous offenses.
• Section 10, CRPF Act, 1949: Pertains to less heinous offenses, including being intoxicated when not on duty.
• Section 11, CRPF Act, 1949: Empowers the disciplinary authority to impose penalties, including dismissal.
• Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Rules, 1955: Specifies the procedure for departmental inquiries.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the ratio in Union of India Vs. Ram Karan; (2022) 1 SCC 373* to clarify that the considerations under Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949, do not govern the imposition of penalties under Section 11.
• The Supreme Court followed the ratio in Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF Vs. Surinder Kumar; (2011) 10 SCC 244* to emphasize that even for a less heinous offense, a CRPF personnel can be dismissed if their conduct is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the force. It also reiterated that the High Court should be slow in interfering with the punishment of dismissal unless it is strikingly disproportionate.
• The Supreme Court followed the ratio in Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma; (2001) 9 SCC 592* to reinforce that judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited, and interference is only warranted when the punishment is strikingly disproportionate.

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 acts of insubordination and misbehavior, especially towards superiors, cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force. The seriousness of the misconduct, coupled with the fact that the respondent was a member of a disciplined force, weighed heavily in the Court’s decision to uphold the dismissal.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the offense was less heinous because the respondent was not on active duty. It clarified that while Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949, differentiate between heinous and less heinous offenses for the purpose of imprisonment, they do not limit the disciplinary powers under Section 11. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not interfere with the disciplinary authority’s decision unless the punishment is strikingly disproportionate, which was not the case here.

The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court, after finding the dismissal disproportionate, did not remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority for imposing an appropriate penalty. Instead, it ordered reinstatement with notional benefits, which was deemed incorrect by the Supreme Court. The court stated that if the punishment is found to be disproportionate, the matter must be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment.

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

“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.”

“In the case of Surinder Kumar (supra) while considering the power of judicial review of the High Court in interfering with the punishment of dismissal, it is observed and held by this Court after considering the earlier decision in the case of Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma; (2001) 9 SCC 592 that in exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate.”

Key Takeaways

• Discipline is paramount in a disciplined force like the CRPF, and acts of insubordination and misbehavior will not be tolerated.
• High Courts should exercise restraint when reviewing disciplinary actions and should not interfere unless the punishment is strikingly disproportionate.
• Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949, which relate to imprisonment, do not limit the disciplinary powers under Section 11.
• If a punishment is found to be disproportionate, the matter should be remitted back to the disciplinary authority for imposing an appropriate penalty.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, which had set aside the order of penalty of dismissal and reinstated the respondent. The order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority was upheld.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court should not interfere with the disciplinary authority’s decision unless the punishment is strikingly disproportionate. The Supreme Court clarified that Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949, which relate to the nature of offenses and imprisonment, do not limit the disciplinary powers under Section 11. This judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining discipline in the CRPF and limits the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. Const Sunil Kumar upholds the dismissal of a CRPF constable for misconduct, emphasizing the importance of discipline within the force. The Court overturned the High Court’s decision, clarifying that the nature of offenses under Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949, does not limit the disciplinary powers under Section 11. This decision reinforces the principle that judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited and should only occur when the punishment is strikingly disproportionate. The judgment underscores the need for strict adherence to discipline within the CRPF and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues.

Category:

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Category: Disciplinary Proceedings

Child Category: Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949

Child Category: Section 11, Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949

Child Category: Section 10, Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the case?
A: The main issue was whether the High Court was correct in overturning the disciplinary authority’s decision to dismiss a CRPF constable for misconduct.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and upheld the dismissal of the CRPF constable.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court uphold the dismissal?
A: The Supreme Court held that the misconduct was serious, and the dismissal was not disproportionate. It also emphasized the importance of discipline in the CRPF.

Q: What is the significance of Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949?
A: Sections 9 and 10 deal with the nature of offenses (heinous or less heinous) and their corresponding punishments, while Section 11 provides the authority to impose penalties for disciplinary reasons.

Q: What is the role of the High Court in reviewing disciplinary actions?
A: The High Court should exercise restraint and not interfere unless the punishment is strikingly disproportionate.

Q: What happens if a punishment is found to be disproportionate?
A: The matter should be remitted back to the disciplinary authority for imposing an appropriate penalty.