EX. CONSTABLE RAMVIR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1112 · Decided: 18-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 1112 
EX. CONSTABLE RAMVIR SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2061 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 18, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Service Law - Dismissal - Punishment of seven days 
imprisonment for disobeying orders of Authority and 
c ' withholding official Dak for three days - During imprisonment 
refusing to take food and refusing to do pack drill -
Trial -
Accused pleaded guilty - Dismissal from service - Held: In 
the fac;ts of the case punishment of dismissal is proper - The 
punishment is not· disproportionate to the offence - Border 
Security Force Act, 1968 - ss. 22 - Border Security Force 
D Rules, 1969 - r. 157. 
Doctrines/Principles - Doctrine of proportionality -
Invoking of - Held: The doctrine can be invoked by superior 
courts - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226. 
E 
Practice and Procedure - Plea - Raising of- For the first 
time before Supreme Court - Permissibility - Held: Not 
permissible. 
Plea - Whether raised before Court - Ascertainment of 
....:. Held: To be ascertained from the judgment - If the plea 
F raised not dealt with by the Court, the remedy available is to 
move that particular court. 
Judicial Interference - Interference with quantum of 
punishment in service matters - Held: Superior courts 
ordinarily not to interfere with quantum of punishment unless 
G the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. 
Appellant-a 'constable with Border Security Force; 
allegedly did not ·report to duty as per direction of his 
superior officer, after collecting official Oak. Enquiry was 
initiated against him. He was awarded 7 days RI in view 
: H 
1112 
... 
\. 
~ 
/' 
... ' 
EX. CONSTABLE RAMVIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & 1113 
ORS. 
of the fact that such offence was committed by him for · A 
the second time. While in custody he refused to take 
meals and refused to do pack drill in defiance of authority. 
He was put to trial where he pleaded guilty. He was 
dismissed from service. His statutory petition was 
rejected by the authorities concerned. Writ Petition 
B 
thereagainst was dismissed by High Court negating the 
pleas that the appellant ·was not given opportunity of 
service of counsel; and that the punishment imposed 
was disproportionate. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended intera\ia c 
that as no action was taken against another constable 
who had also absented from duties with him, entire ' 
proceedings were vitiated in law; and that the 
misconduct committed in the prison did not come within , 
purview of misconduct. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. The plea that the appellant was 
discriminated against vis-a-vis the other constable who 
had gone alongwith him to collect the official Oak, having 
D 
not been raised by him before the High Court, it is not E 
possible to consider the contention which has been 
raised for the firsftime. Even if such a contention had 
been raised in th~ writ p~tition, but it does not appear 
from the ,impugned judgment that the same was pressed . 
before the High Court. This Cou_rt is bound by the 
Judge's record. If the High Court, despite raising a 
F 
contention in that behalf did ,rot dear therewith, the only, · 
remedy available to the appellant was to move the High 
Court drawing its attention thereto. Apart from the fact ! 
'that the said procedure was not adopted by appellant, 
even before this Court neither the counsel appearing in 
G 
the High Court nor the appellant, affirmed any affidavit 
1 
that such a contention, in fact, had been raised before the 
High Court. It is, therefore, not possible to accept that the 
1 
contention as regards the discrimination against the ' 
H 
1114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A appellant vis-a-vis the other constable was raised. [Para 
9] (1119-A-D] 
State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak (1982) 
" 
2 sec 462, Relied on. 
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mm (P) Ltd. 
8 (2003) 2 SCC 111 and Dhanabhai Khalasi v. State of Gµjarat 
(2007) 4 sec 241, referred to. 
2. Appellant did not raise any c·ontention before the 
Summary Security Force Court that he intended to 
consult a lawyer or to select a friend of his choice as 
C provided for in Rule 157 of Border Security Force Rules, 
1969. The High Court, therefore, has rightly opined that 
such a contention cannot be permitted to be raised. (Para 
11] (1120-F-G] 
3.1. The doctrine of proportionality in a given case 
D may be invoked by the Superior Courts in exercise 

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