UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus GULAM MOHD. BHAT

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 367 · Decided: 20-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
GULAM MOHD. BHAT 
OCTOBER 20, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.) 
B 
Service Matter: 
Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949-Sections 9, JO and I I-Central 
Reserve Plaice Rules, 1955-Rule 27-Emp/oyee reporting for duty long after C 
sanctioned leave-Competent Authority passing an order of removal from 
service-High Court quashing the order of removal on the ground that it is 
without jurisdiction under the Act-Correctness of-Held, the competent 
authority has jurisdiction to pass an order of removal from service under the 
Act for such misconduct. 
D 
Respondent was working as a Constable in Central Reserve Police 
Force. The respondent reported for duty long after the sanctioned leave 
period without prior sanction. The competent authority initiated 
departmental proceedings for misconduct and passed an order of removal 
from service. The respondent filed a Writ Petition before High Court E 
challenging the order. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition of the 
respondent on the ground that the order of removal is without jurisdiction 
in terms of section lO(m) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 
read with Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Rules, 1955. 
In appeal to the Court, the appellants contended that the F 
punishments under section 11 of the Act were in lieu of or in addition to 
an order of suspension or dismissal; and that Rule 27 of the Rules permits 
the authority to pass an order of removal from service for such 
misconduct. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The use of words 'in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension 
or dismissal', appearing in Section 11(1) of the Act shows that the 
authorities are empowered to award punishment of dismissal or suspension 
367 
G 
H 
368 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A to a member of force who is found guilty and in addition to, or in lieu 
thereof, the punishment mentioned in clause (a) to (e) of Section I I of the 
Act. [373-D) 
1.2. Section I I of the Act deals with only those minor punishments 
which may be awarded in a departmenta1 inquiry and a plain reading 
B thereof makes it quite clear that a punishment of dismissal can certainly 
be awarded thereunder even if the delinquent is not prosecuted for an 
offence under Section 9 or Section IO of the Act. Hence, the order of 
removal from service suffers from no infirmity. (373-F; 374-D) 
Dr. Dattatraya Mahadev Nadkarni (since deceased by his L.Rs.) v. 
C Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, AIR (I992) SC 786, State of U.P. 
v. Ashok Kumar Singh, [I996) I SCC 302 and Mithilesh Singh v. Union of 
India and Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 309, referred to. 
D 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4950of1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.8.97 of the Jammu and Kashmir 
.High Court in S.W.P. No. 2243 of 1993. 
A. Sharan, Additional Solicitor General, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Ms. 
Sushma Suri and P. Parmeswaran for the Appellants. 
Ugra Shankar Prasad (N.P.) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Challenge in this appeal is by the Union of 
F India and its functionaries to the judgment rendered by a learned Singie 
Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court holding that the order of 
removal from service passed by the departmental authorities in terms of 
Section 11 (I) Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (in short the 'Act') 
read with Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Rules, 1955 (in short the 
'Rules') is without jurisdiction. 
G 
The background facts need to be noted in brief: 
The respondent as a Consta,ble in Central Reserve Police Force (in 
short 'CRPF') joined the duty at Srinagar after being detailed for duty from 
Assam along with a group of fresh trainees. He applied for leave on 18th 
H January, 1992 which was sanctioned. He reported for duty long after the 
.. 
-
U.0.1. v. GULAMMOHD. BHAT [PASAYAT,J.] 
369 
·• sanctioned leave period. was over on 8th December, 1992. Departmental A 
proceedings were initiated for misconduct on account of overstay beyond 
sanctioned leave for 315 days without prior permission or sanction from the 
competent authority. On 21.6.1993 on the basis of the report of the inquiry 
officer, the competent authority passed order of removal from service. The 
same was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition in the Jammu B 
and Kashmir High Court. By impugned order dated 5.8.1997 a learned Single 
Judge held that since the r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.