SMT. KANTA DEVI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 992 · Decided: 12-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. KANTA DEVI 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
MARCH 12, 2003 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJJT PASAYAT, 11.] 
Service Law: 
Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1955-Central Reserve Police Force 
C Rules, 1955-Rules 7B and 27·-Dismissal order of Subedar (Inspector) by 
Deputy Inspector General (DIG)-Justification of-Held: Since Commandant 
is the appointing authority and Subedar (Inspector) can be dismissed or 
removedjl·om the force by DIG, who is higher in rank than the Commandant, 
thus dismissal order passed by DIG is legal-Ex-gratia amount-Payment 
D of-Directed. 
Disproportionate punishment-Interference-Scope of-Held: In cases 
where punishmem is found not disproportionate to the proved charges 
interference is not called for-Constitution of India, 1950. 
E 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
F 
Rules of construction-Held: Words should not be read into a statute 
unless it is absolutely necesswy to do so. 
legal Maxims: 
Causus omissus-Discussed. 
Appellant's husband-d-;:ceased employee (Subedar Inspector) was 
charged with mis-conduct. On the basis of departmental enquiry he was 
dismissed from service in terms of order passed by Deputy Inspector 
G General of Police(DIGi. Employee filed a statutory appeal challenging the 
dismissal order which was dismissed. Single Judge of High Court quashed 
the dismissal order and directed re-instatement with consequential benefits 
on the ground that DIG could not have removed the employee without 
prior approval of the IG. Aggrieved respondent filed an appeal. Divisiqn 
Bench referring to Rules 7(1) and 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force 
H 
992 
' --
KANTA DEVI v. U.0.1. 
993 
Rules, 1955 held that Commandant is the appointing authority and not A 
JG; and DIG being an officer superior to Commandant had authority to 
pass the order of dismissal, and restored the dismissal order. 
Appellant contended that the Division Bench was not correct in 
interpreting Rule 27 which prescribes the procedure for award of 
punishment; that for the purpose of appointment or promotion, approval B 
of the IG is necessary thus, approval is required in case of dismissal also; 
that ·in view of unblemished service records of the employee, the 
punishment of dismissal was highly disproportionate to the allegations 
made and also debarring the family of th.e employee of the pensionary 
benefits was not just; that the records of the proceedings were not C 
produced on fallacious premises that they were not available, had the 
records been produced it could have been proved that the punishment of 
dismissal was disproportionate to the allegations made; and that the 
allegations were not of such grave magnitude as to warrant dismissal. 
Respondents contended that requirement of approval by the IG as D 
a condition precedent to effectuate an order passed by the prescribed 
authority, is clearly not warranted; that the disciplinary authorities after 
due consideration of the materials on record came to hold that order of 
dismissal would be proper; and that it has not been shown as to how the 
same is disproportionate to the proved charges. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: I. Rules 7 and 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 
1955 show that while for the purpose of appointment, the approval of the 
DIG or the IG, as th~ case may be, is required to be obtained, that does 
not make the IG, the·appointing authority; and as per Rule 7(b) the F 
appointing authority is the Commandant and this does not change the 
position of the Commandant as the appointing authority. Further under 
Rule 27, procedure for award of punishment, Subedar (Inspector) can be 
dismissed or removed from the Force by the Deputy Inspector General of 
Police, who is higher in rank than the Commandant. Therefore as per Rule G 
7(b) the appointing authority is the Commandant and since the DIG is of 
higher rank, there is no illegality in the dismissal order passed by him. 
Therefore, the conclusion of the Division Bench in holding that the order 
of dismissal passed by the DIG was legal, does not suffer from any 
infirmities warranting interference. [997-G, H; 998-D, G] 
H 
994 
SUPREME COURT.REPORTS 
[2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
State of Assam v. Kripanath Sarma and Ors., AIR (1967) SC 459, 
referred to. 
2. The submission that approval of IG is required if accepted, would 
mean addition of words or expressions in Rule 27. It is not a case of causus 
omissus. A construction which requires for its support, addition of words

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