ANGAD DAS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 1047 · Decided: 18-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 2 S.C.R. 1047 
ANGAD DAS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civi! Appeal Nos. 1429-1430 OF 2008) 
FEBRUARY 18, 2010 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND A. K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Service law: 
A 
B 
Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 -
r. 28 -
c 
Delinquent official punished with 'compulsory retirement' on 
the charge of suppression of real date of birth at the time of 
joining service - Letter by the delinquent official to higher 
authority requesting to consider his re-employment - Treating 
the letter as appeal, punishment enhanced to 'removal from 
0 
service' - Review dismissed by the authority concerned -
Dismissal of writ petition - On appeal, held: Letter requesting 
re-employment cannot be treated as appeal u/r. 28 -
Imposition of enhanced punishment was unjustified -
Direction to pay pensionary benefits with interest. 
E 
The appellant, recruited as a constable in Central 
Reserve Police Force, was issued show-cause notice, 
after about 25 years of service alleging that his date of 
birth given at the time of joining the service, was found 
false. After the enquiry, he was given the punishment of 
F 
compulsory retirement. The appellant, thereafter, wrote a 
letter to DIG Police, CRPF, praying for his re-employment 
in view of the fact that he had enormous family 
responsibility. This letter was treated as an appeal, and 
DIG Police, CRPF, enhanced his punishment to 'removal 
G 
from service'. The revision petition there against was 
dismissed by the competent authority. The writ petition 
challenging the orders was dismissed. Hence the present 
appeals. 
1047 
H 
1048 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The letter requesting for re-employment 
could not have been treated as an appeal under Rule 28 
of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1·955_ The 0.1.G. 
8 Police, CRPF, was unjustified in enhancing the 
punishment from 'compulsory retirement' to 'removal 
from service'. The order was legally untenable. The 
reviewing authority has also seriously erred in upholding 
the order passed by the 0.1.G. Police, CRPF. The appellant 
C and his family have suffered tremendous mental agony, 
and harassment was caused to them on account of 
arbitrary orders. The appellant be paid all the pensionary 
benefits which have become due and payable to him, " 
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, within two 
moths from the date of communication of this order. 
D [Paras 8, 10 and 11] [1051-C-E, G-H; 1052-A] 
. 
' 
2. People in power and authority should not easily 
lose equ~nimity, composure and appreciation for the 
problems of the lesser mortals. They are always expected 
E .·to remember that power and authority must be 
judiciously exercised according to the laws and human 
compassion. Arrogance and vanity have no place in 
discharge of their official functions and duties. The Court 
hopes and trusts that senior officials in future would not 
F be totally oblivious of the problems of the humble and 
modest employees and pass similar orders. [Paras 1 and 
13] [1049-B-C; 1052-B] 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.· 
1429-1430 of 2010. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 12.5.2008 & 4.8.208 
of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Writ Petition 
No. 5006 of 1998 . 
.Dalip Kumar Malhotra, Rajesh Malhotra for the _Appellant. 
ANGAD DAS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
1049 
Vivek Tankha, ASG, Satya Siiddique, A. Deb Kumar, 
A 
Shreekant N. Terdal for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. People in power and 
authority should not easily lose equanimity, composure and 
8 
appreciation for the problems of the lesser mortals. They are 
always expected to remember that power and authority must 
be judiciously exercised according to the laws and human 
compassion. Arrogance and vanity have no place in discharge 
of their official functions and duties. 
C 
2. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 
3. Heard the learned Additional Solicitor General and the 
learned counsel for the appellant at length. Brief facts necessary 
D 
to dispose of these appeals are recapitulated as under:-
4. The appellant was recruited as a Constable in the 
Central Reserve Police Force, Balia Police Line in the State 
of U.P. in the year 1969. He was promoted to the post of Lance 
Naik, then as Naik and thereafter to the post of Head Constable. 
E 
When the appellant was posted as a Head Constable at 
Jammu and Kashmir, he was served a show cause notice 
date

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.