LexEX-CONST/DVR MUKESH KUMAR RAIGAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 797 [2023] 1 S.C.R. 797 797 EX-CONST/DVR MUKESH KUMAR RAIGAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10499 of 2022) JANUARY 16, 2023 [AJAY RASTOGI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.] Service Law : Removal from service – Constable found guilty of gross misconduct and indiscipline – Suppression of pending criminal litigation in the verification form submitted at the time of appointment – Departmental inquiry – Order of removal from the services – Single Judge of the High Court set aside the dismissal order and directed the reinstatement of the constable – However, the Division Bench set aside the order – On appeal, held: Constable has committed gross misconduct – There was deliberate suppression of fact which was an aggravating circumstances – Force personnel are required to maintain discipline of the highest order and the involvement of the constable in such grave offences debarred him from the appointment – Appointing authorities have passed the order of his removal from services after following the due process of law and without malafides – Single Judge of High Court wrongly interfered with the order of removal passed by the authorities, thus, the order passed by the Division Bench is upheld – CISF Rules, 2001 – r. 36, 54. Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court HELD : 1.1 The Single Bench of the High Court had committed an error in interfering with the order passed by the respondents-authorities. The respondents-authorities had after taking into consideration the decision in case of Avtar Singh terminated the services of the petitioner holding inter-alia that while the petitioner was appointed in CISF, a criminal case was pending against him at the time of his enrolment in the force, but he did not reveal the same and that there was deliberate suppression of facts which was an aggravating circumstance. CISF being an armed force of Union of India, is deployed in sensitive sectors such as airports, ports, department of atomic energy, department of space, metro, power and steel, for internal security A B C D E F G H 798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R. duty etc., and therefore, the force personnel are required to maintain discipline of the highest order; and that the involvement of the petitioner in such grave offences debarred him from the appointment. Such a well-reasoned and well considered decision of the respondent-authorities should not have been interfered by the Single Bench in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when there were no allegations of malafides or of non-observance of rules of natural justice or of breach of statutory rules were attributed against the respondent authorities. [Para 9][806-D-G] 1.2 The Division Bench of the High Court had rightly set aside the order passed by the Single Bench, which had wrongly interfered with the order of removal passed by the respondent authorities against the petitioner. The petitioner having been found to have committed gross misconduct right at the threshold of entering into disciplined force like CISF, and the respondent authorities having passed the order of his removal from service after following due process of law and without actuated by malafides, the court is not inclined to exercise its limited jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. [Para 13][808- F-G] Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445; Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1300 – relied on. Union of India & Ors. v. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1; Union of India v. Dilip Kumar Mallick, (2022) 6 SCALE 108, Pawan Kumar v. Union of India & Anr., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. Anil Kanwariya, (2021) 10 SCC 136; Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2019) 17 SCC 696; State of Orissa & Ors. v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra, AIR 1963 SC 779 : [1963] Suppl. SCR 648; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 749 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 644; Om Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 : [2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 693; Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) & Ors. v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612 – referred to. A B C D E F G H 799 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, [1948] 1 KB 223 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2016] 7 SCR 445 relied on Para 7 (2022) 1 SCC 1 referred Para 8 (2022) 6 SCALE 108 referred Para 8 (2021) 10 SCC 136 referred Para 8 (2019) 17
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.