Supreme Court Upholds Removal of Head Constable for Entering Women’s Barracks: Anil Kumar Upadhyay vs. Director General, SSB (20 April 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 April 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 449
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a disciplinary authority impose different penalties on employees for similar misconduct? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a Head Constable who was removed from service for entering a women’s barrack, while a female constable involved in the same incident received a lesser penalty. This judgment clarifies the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and the principle of proportionality in punishment. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, Anil Kumar Upadhyay, was a Head Constable (Ministerial) in the 15th Battalion of the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) in Bongaigaon. On the intervening night of April 14-15, 2013, at approximately 00:15 hours, he entered the Mahila (women’s) Barrack of the Battalion. This act was considered a violation of good order and discipline under Section 43 of the Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007. He was charged with indiscipline and misconduct for compromising the security of the occupants of the Mahila Barrack. Six female constables apprehended him inside the barrack. Following this incident, he was suspended, and a departmental inquiry was initiated against him. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges.

During the Record of Evidence (ROE), statements from prosecution and defense witnesses were recorded, and the appellant had the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. After reviewing the ROE, the Battalion Commandant ordered a Summary Force Court (SFC) against the appellant. Before the SFC, the appellant again pleaded not guilty. The SFC found him guilty and initially ordered his dismissal on April 29, 2013. However, this was later converted to ‘removal from service’ on June 21, 2013, by the Commandant. The appellant’s departmental appeal was initially rejected as time-barred but was later rejected on merits on January 24, 2014.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant challenged his removal from service by filing a writ petition before the High Court. The learned Single Judge noted that all due opportunities were given to the appellant during the disciplinary proceedings, and the finding of guilt was based on proper evidence. However, the Single Judge interfered with the punishment of ‘removal from service’ because a female constable, Rupasi Barman, who was on sentry duty and allowed the appellant’s entry, received a lesser penalty (forfeiture of two years’ seniority and two years’ service for promotion purposes). The Single Judge found this disparity disproportionate and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority for a lesser punishment.

The disciplinary authority appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court, which set aside the Single Judge’s order. The Division Bench restored the original punishment of ‘removal from service’, leading the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision relevant to this case is Section 43 of the Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007, which deals with the violation of good order and discipline. According to the source, the appellant was charged with violating this provision, which states:

“43. Violation of good order and discipline.—Any member of the Force who violates good order and discipline shall, on conviction by a Force Court, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.”

This section allows for disciplinary action against members of the SSB who fail to maintain good order and discipline. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted under the Sashastra Seema Bal Rules, which provide the procedures for such actions.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the Summary Force Court (SFC) was convened without proper reasons, violating principles of natural justice. However, the High Court had already ruled against this point.

• The appellant contended that the punishment of ‘removal from service’ was disproportionate, especially since the female constable, Rupasi Barman, received a lesser penalty for similar charges. The charges against both were identical and warranted similar punishments.

• The appellant highlighted that he had received three cash rewards for good conduct during his service, suggesting that removal from service was too harsh for a single act of misconduct.

• The appellant claimed he entered the Mahila Barrack to offer a New Year gift to Rupasi Barman, who was his friend, and that she had unlocked the barrack gate herself, indicating his intention was not malicious.

• The appellant relied on the case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2386, to argue that the punishment was disproportionate and should be reduced.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted according to the law, and a serious charge of misconduct was proven against the appellant for entering the Mahila Barrack at midnight.

• The respondents contended that the misconduct of the appellant, a Head Constable in a disciplined force, could not be equated with that of the female constable. The appellant’s actions compromised the security of the Mahila Barrack, warranting a severe penalty.

• The respondents argued that the disciplinary authority made a conscious decision to impose the punishment of ‘removal from service’ after considering the seriousness of the misconduct. It was not open for the High Court to interfere with this decision.

• The respondents relied on the cases of Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386; Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463; Union of India v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari, (2006) 10 SCC 388; and Union of India v. Diler Singh, (2016) 13 SCC 71, to support their stance on the test of proportionality.

• The respondents also cited B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749; and Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Allahabd, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) v. Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372, to argue that courts should not interfere with the disciplinary authority’s decision on punishment.

• The respondents maintained that the punishment was justified given the appellant’s position in a disciplined force and the serious nature of his misconduct.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

“Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on the ground that the same was disproportionate as the female constable against whom also the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the two charges were held to be proved against her, was inflicted with the lesser punishment?”

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Cited by the Court:

• Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that the quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily the domain of the disciplinary authority, and judicial review is limited to the application of Wednesbury principles.
• Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 – Supreme Court of India: This case was used to support the argument that courts should not interfere with the disciplinary authority’s decision on punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate.
• Union of India v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari, (2006) 10 SCC 388 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to reinforce the principle that the disciplinary authority’s decision should be respected unless it is found to be unreasonable.
• Union of India v. Diler Singh, (2016) 13 SCC 71 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to highlight that members of a disciplined force are expected to follow rules and control their behavior.
• B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to establish that disciplinary authorities have the exclusive power to consider evidence and impose appropriate punishment. The High Court/Tribunal cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty.
• Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Allahabd, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) v. Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that courts should not interfere with the punishment imposed by disciplinary authorities unless it is shockingly disproportionate. It also highlighted that parity in punishment is only applicable when the co-delinquents are equally placed.
• Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2386 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the appellant to argue that the punishment was disproportionate. However, the Supreme Court did not find this case applicable to the present facts.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 43 of the Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007: This provision was the basis for the disciplinary action against the appellant. It deals with the violation of good order and discipline.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386*: The Court followed this case to emphasize the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.
• Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463*: The Court relied on this case to support the principle that courts should not interfere with the disciplinary authority’s decision unless it is shockingly disproportionate.
• Union of India v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari, (2006) 10 SCC 388*: The Court used this case to reinforce the need to respect the disciplinary authority’s decision.
• Union of India v. Diler Singh, (2016) 13 SCC 71*: The Court cited this case to highlight the expected conduct of members of a disciplined force.
• B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749*: The Court relied on this case to assert the exclusive power of disciplinary authorities in considering evidence and imposing punishment.
• Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372*: The Court followed this case to emphasize the limited scope of judicial review and the principle that parity in punishment is applicable only when the co-delinquents are equally placed.
• Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2386*: The Court did not find this case applicable to the present facts.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the seriousness of the misconduct committed by the appellant, a male Head Constable, entering the women’s barrack at midnight. The Court emphasized that such an act compromised the security of the occupants and could not be tolerated in a disciplined force. The Court also highlighted that the disciplinary authority had followed due process and had the power to impose appropriate punishment. The fact that a female constable received a lesser punishment was not considered a valid reason to reduce the appellant’s punishment, as their roles and responsibilities were different, and the misconducts were not identical.

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

The court considered the argument that the punishment was disproportionate because the female constable received a lesser penalty. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the misconduct of the male Head Constable was more serious. The Court also noted that the disciplinary authority had the power to impose appropriate punishment and that the High Court should not interfere with this decision unless it was shockingly disproportionate.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“The nature of allegations against the appellant are grave in nature. He entered the Mahila Barrack in the midnight at around 00:15 hours, may be to meet his alleged friend Rupasi Barman, but such an indisciplined conduct leading to compromising the security of the occupants of the Mahila Barrack cannot be tolerated.”

“The misconduct of entering the Mahila Barrack of the Battalion in the midnight is more serious when committed by a male Head Constable.”

“Even otherwise, merely because one of the employees was inflicted with a lesser punishment cannot be a ground to hold the punishment imposed on another employee as disproportionate, if in case of another employee higher punishment is warranted and inflicted by the disciplinary authority after due application of mind.”

Key Takeaways

• Disciplinary authorities have significant discretion in determining the appropriate punishment for misconduct.
• Courts should not interfere with the disciplinary authority’s decision unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate.
• The misconduct of a male Head Constable entering a women’s barrack is considered a grave offense.
• Parity in punishment is not always required, especially when the roles and responsibilities of the employees involved are different.
• Members of disciplined forces are expected to follow rules and maintain high standards of conduct.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion of any specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that disciplinary authorities have the power to impose different punishments on employees for similar misconduct, especially when their roles, responsibilities, and the nature of their misconduct differ. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts should not interfere with the disciplinary authority’s decision unless it is shockingly disproportionate. This case clarifies that parity in punishment is not always required and that the seriousness of the misconduct, the position of the employee, and the impact of the misconduct on the organization are all relevant factors in determining the appropriate punishment. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court found that the punishment of ‘removal from service’ imposed on the Head Constable for entering the women’s barrack was not disproportionate, given the seriousness of the misconduct and his position in a disciplined force. The Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and the importance of respecting the disciplinary authority’s decision unless it is shockingly disproportionate. The judgment reinforces the principle that parity in punishment is not always required and that different punishments can be imposed on employees for similar misconduct when their roles and responsibilities differ.