ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, SSB AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 1106 · Decided: 20-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 1106
1106
ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY
v.
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, SSB AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2707 of 2022)
APRIL 20, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law: Indiscipline and misconduct – Removal from
service – Appellant was serving as a Head Constable in Sashastra
Seema Bal – He was charged with violation of good order and
discipline u/s. 43 of 2007 Act for having entered the Mahila Barrack
at mid-night to meet his alleged female friend – Appellant was held
guilty of the charges and order of removal from service was passed
against him – Appellant filed writ petition – Plea of appellant was
that much lesser punishment was imposed against a female constable
who allowed the entry of the appellant and same was discriminatory
– On this ground, single judge set aside punishment of ‘removal
from service’ and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to
impose any lesser punishment which may facilitate the appellant to
retain his job – Disciplinary authority successfully challenged the
order of single judge before Division Bench – Hence instant appeal
by the delinquent – Held: The nature of misconduct committed by
the appellant was grave in nature and unpardonable – Misconduct
committed by a male Head Constable cannot be equated with the
misconduct committed by female constable – Single judge
committed grave error in comparing the case of female constable
with that of the appellant male Head Constable – 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 – Imposition of punishment/penalty on a
particular employee depends upon various factors, like the
position of the employee in the department, role attributed to him
and the nature of allegations against him – Punishment of removal
from service cannot be said to be disproportionate at all to the
misconduct held to be proved against the appellant – Sashatra Seema
Bal Act, 2007 – s. 43.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1107
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellant was imposed the penalty of
‘removal from service’ after the charges levelled against him
stood proved by the disciplinary authority in an enquiry held
against him after following the procedure prescribed under the
SSB Rules. 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 nature of misconduct which has been
committed by the appellant stands proved and is unpardonable.
Therefore, when the disciplinary authority considered it
appropriate to punish him with the penalty of ‘removal from
service’, which is confirmed by the appellate authority, thereafter
it was not open for the learned Single Judge to interfere with
the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
[Para 9][1117-G-H; 1118-B-C]
2. The Single Judge did not appreciate that the misconduct
committed by the delinquent official, being a male Head Constable
cannot be equated with the misconduct committed by the female
constable. The misconduct of entering the Mahila Barrack of the
Battalion in the midnight is more serious when committed by a
male Head Constable. Therefore, the Single Judge committed a
grave error in comparing the case of female constable with that
of the appellant – delinquent, male Head Constable. [Para
10][1118-E-F]
3. 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. There
cannot be any negative discrimination. The punishment/penalty
to be imposed on a particular employee depends upon various
factors, like the position of the employee in the department, role
attributed to him and the nature of allegations against him.
Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court is absolutely
ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY v. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, SSB
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
justified in interfering with the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge, interfering with the order of punishment

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