UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus NARAIN SINGH

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 924 · Decided: 09-05-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

).v ,.,_
,, 
t• 
~
~'
A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
.v. 
;.__ 
NARAIN SINGH 
MAY 9, 2002 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUAD RI AND S.N. V ARIA VA, JJ.] 
Service law-Misconduct-Court Martial-Dismissal from service on 
A, 
admitted facts-Order of dismissal confirmed by appellate authority and Single 
c 
Judge of High Court-Division Bench setting aside the order-Whether 
justified-Held, charges being serious in nature the penalty was commensurate 
with the charges-When charges proved courts should not interfere with the 
quantum of punishment-Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226. 
Respondent committed misconduct for the third time. He was 
D charge-sheeted. During ,Court Martial, respondent pleaded guilty and also 
stated that he was a poor man and may be pardoned. Disciplinary 
Authority, on admitted facts, held him guilty of the charges and dismissed 
him from service. Aggrieved, respondent filed appeal which was dismissed. 
Single Judge of the High Court also dismissed the petition. Division Bench 
concluded that the charges against the respondent are proved and are of 
E serious nature and also that he was punished for the third time. However, 
holding that when a poor person pleads guilty to the misconduct committed 
•. 
by him then the extreme penalty of dismissal from service was un-called 
for, it set aside the dismissal order. Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
J 
HELD : A Court must not lightly interfere with sentences passed 
after a properly conducted enquiry where the guilt is proved. Reduction 
of sentence, particularly in military, para-military or police services can 
have a demoralising effect and would be a retrograde step so far as 
G discipline of these services is concerned. It is not for the Court to determine 
the quantum of punishment once charges are proved. Also it is not for 
the Court to interfere on misplaced grounds of sympatl1y and/or mercy. 
In the instant case the charges being of a serious nature th!! penalty of 
dismissal from service was commensurate with the charges. Thus Division 
~,.,, 
H 
Bench erred in setting aside the dismissal order and also holding that if a 
924 
U.0.1. v. >4ARAIN SINGH J.S.N. VARIAVA. J.J 
925 
poor person pleads guilty to the misconduct, then extreme penalty of A 
dismissal is uncalled for. 1927-F-G; 928-A, Bl 
Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur, 119721 4 SCC 618 and Apparel 
Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, 119991 1 SCC 759, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3414 of B 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.2.2001 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in D.B.C.S.A. No. 1051 of 1998. 
Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Binu Tamta and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Appellants. C 
Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Shobha and Anu Mehta for K.L. Mehta & Co. for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.N. VARIAVA, J. (!)Leave granted. 
(2) Heard parties. 
(3) This Appeal is against an Order dated 26th February, 2001. Brieny 
D 
stated the facts are as follows: 
E 
The Respondent was appointed as a Driver in the Border Security Force 
in 1990. In 1992 he met with an accident which was found to be due to his 
negligence. He was punished with 28 days qua1ter guard and a sum of Rs. 
2,405 was recovered from him. He was then changed from the cadre of 
Driver to that of a Constable. Thereafter he was punished a second time for F 
n1isconduct. 
(4) On 3rd February, 1997 the Head Constable, who was in-charge of 
assigning duties to the Constables working under him, directed the Respondent 
to go for Sentry Duty at Sector Headquarters, BSF, Silliguri. The Respondent G 
did not report for Sentry duty. When the Head Constable learnt about this he 
went to the barrack and found the Respondent sleeping. The Head Constable 
woke up the Respondent. Some altercation took place and the Respondent 
gave a fist blow on the mouth of the Head Constable as a result of which the 
front tooth of the Head Constable was broken. 
H 
926 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2002] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
(5) On 4th February, 1997 the Respondent was charge-sheeted for two 
charges, viz. (i) disobeying the lawful command given by the superior officer 
and (ii) assaulting the superior officer. On 2nd March, 1997, during Court 
Martial, the Respondent admitted that he had disobeyed the lawful command 
and that he had assaulted his superior officer. He stated that, "I am a poor 
man, I have committed a mistake. I may be pardoned." The Disciplinary 
B Authority, on admitted facts, f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.