THE COMMANDANT, 22 BATTALION, CRPF SRINAGAR, C/O 56/APO & ORS. versus SURINDER KUMAR

Citation: [2011] 12 S.C.R. 1189 · Decided: 20-10-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 12 S.C.R. 1189 
THE COMMANDANT, 22 BATTALION, CRPF SRINAGAR, 
C/O 56/APO & ORS. 
v. 
SURINDER KUMAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 2177 of 2006) 
OCTOBER 20, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 - ss. 10 (n) and 
A 
B 
12 (1) - Respondent-constable in Central Reserve Police C 
Force left his patrolling party without permission while on duty 
in the operational area for 20 minutes and returned on his own 
- He was found in state of intoxication and got enraged when 
Assistant Commandant took him for medical examination -
Also snatched rifle of the Assistant Commandant and pointed o 
out barrel towards him - Respondent convicted and sentenced 
to imprisonment till the rising of the court u/s 1 O (n) and 
dismissed from service by order passed u/s. 12 (1) - Writ 
Petition by the constable, dismissed by the Single Judge -
However, the Division Bench of the High Court held that the 
E 
punishment of dismissal was disproportionate since the 
respondent was punished for imprisonment for a less heinous 
offence and only till the rising of the court and directed the 
appellants to reconsider the nature and quantum of 
punishment awarded to the respondent - On appeal, held: For 
F 
less heinous offences enumerated in s. 10, a person was 
liable for punishment with imprisonment and uls. 12(1) every 
person sentenced under the Act to imprisonment was liable 
to be dismissed from the CRPF - On facts, the acts of 
indiscipline for which the respondent had been sentenced for 
imprisonment were serious and grave fqr a disciplined force 
G 
-
The competent authority was right in imposing the 
punishment of dismissal from service - Instant case is not 
where the punishment of dismissal was striki!Jgly 
1189 
H 
1190 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 
A disproportionate or where on the face of it there was perversity 
or irrationality- Thus, the order passed by the Division Bench 
of the High Court is set aside. 
It is alleged that respondent, Constable in the Central 
8 Reserve Police Force was detailed with vehicle to carry 
patrolling party but he left the vehicle unattended without 
permission of his superior officer for 20 minutes. He 
consumed illicit alcohol while on duty and in an inebriated 
state of mind misbehaved with his superior officer, 
C snatched his AK-47 rifle and pointed the barrel of the rifle 
to him. The respondent was held guilty of charges and 
convicted and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising 
of the Court u/s. 10 of the Central Reserve Police Force 
Act, 1949. He was also dismissed from service by order 
passed under Section 12 (1) of the Act. The respondent 
D filed a writ petition. The Single Judge of the High Court 
dismissed the same. The Division Bench held that the 
punishment of dismissal of the respondent was 
disproportionate in as much as. his conviction was till the 
rising of the court for having· committed a less heinous 
E offence and directed the appellants to reconsider the 
nature and quantum of punishment awarded to the 
respondent. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant 
appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is clear from Section 1 O(n) of the Central 
Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 that a member of the 
CRPF who is guilty of any act or omission which is 
prejudicial to good order and discipline is punishable with 
G imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year 
or with fine which may extend to three months' pay, or 
with both. Section 12(1) of the Act provides that every 
person sentenced under this Act to imprisonment may 
be dismissed from the CRPF. The word "may" in Section 
H 12(1) of the Act confers a discretion on the competent 
.. 
COMMANDANT, 22,,,BATTALION, CRPF SRINAGAR, 1191 
CIO 56/APO v. SURINDER KUMAR 
authority whether or not to dismiss a member of the 
A 
CRPF from service pursuant to a sentence of 
imprisonment under the Act and while exercising the 
discretion, the competent authority has to consider 
various relevant factors including the nature of the 
offence for which he has been sentenced to 
B 
imprisonment. [Para 6) [1195-G-H; 1196-A-B] 
1.2. In the instant case, the acts of indiscipline of the 
respondent have been established beyond doubt by the 
Assistant Commandant-cum-Magistrate. These ac.ts of C 
indiscipline were obviously prejudicial to the good order 
and discipline and when committed by a member of a 
disciplined. force like the CRPF were serious enough to 
warrant dism

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