UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus CONST SUNIL KUMAR

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 961 · Decided: 19-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
961
961
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
CONST SUNIL KUMAR
(Civil Appeal No. 219 of 2023)
JANUARY 19, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Service law – Dismissal from service – Allegation that
respondent consumed liquor while on duty and threatened senior
officers – CRPF dismissed the respondent from service – Order
confirmed by the Appellate Authority – Single Judge of the High
Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent – However,
the Division Bench of the High Court reinstated the respondent – It
held that dismissal was disproportionate as when the misconduct
was committed the respondent was not on active duty – On appeal,
held: The charges and misconduct proved against the respondent
was of misbehaving with superior and giving threats of dire
consequences to the superior, may be under the influence of
intoxication – Misconduct was of very serious nature – Charges
and misconduct of indiscipline and insubordination proved – The
penalty of dismissal is not disproportionate to the gravity of the
wrong – Reasoning given by the Division Bench of the High Court
cannot be accepted – Thus, the impugned judgment and order of
the High Court dismissing the penalty and reinstating the respondent
set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD 1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the
disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal after
holding the departmental enquiry and after following the due
procedure as required under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955
and after having held the charges and misconduct proved. The
charges and misconduct held to be proved against the respondent
who was serving in CRPF – a disciplined force can be said to be
a grave and serious misconduct. The charges and misconduct
proved against the respondent is of misbehaving with superior
and giving threats of dire consequences to the superior, may be
under the influence of intoxication. He also misbehaved and gave
threats to the colleagues. The misconduct committed by the
respondent is of insubordination also. The misconduct of
misbehaving with the superior/senior officer and of
insubordination can be said to be a very serious misconduct and
cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force like CRPF and
therefore, as such the Division Bench of the High Court is not
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 961
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
962
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
justified in observing that on the proved charges and misconduct
penalty of dismissal can be said to be disproportionate. [Para
6][966-G-H; 967-A-C]
2. While holding that the penalty of dismissal can be said to
be disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong, what is weighed
with the Division Bench of the High Court is that as the
respondent was found to be in a state of intoxication when not on
duty and considering Section 10, he is deemed to have committed
a less heinous offence. Whether a member of the force has
committed a heinous offence or a less heinous offence as per
Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949 would have bearing on
inflicting the punishment as provided under Sections 9 and 10
but has no relevance on the disciplinary proceedings/
departmental enquiry for the act of indiscipline and/or
insubordination. [Para 6.1][967-C-E]
3. Applying the law laid down by this Court to the facts of
the case on hand, it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal
can be said to be strikingly disproportionate warranting the
interference of the High Court in exercise of powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances
of the case and on the charges and misconduct of indiscipline
and insubordination proved, the CRPF being a disciplined force,
the order of penalty of dismissal was justified and it cannot be
said to be disproportionate and/or strikingly disproportionate to
the gravity of the wrong. Under the circumstances also, the
Division Bench of the High Court has committed a very serious
error in interfering with the order of penalty of dismissal imposed
and ordering reinstatement of the respondent. [Para 6.3][968-
B-D]
4. At this stage, it is required to be observed that even
while holding that the punishment/penalty of dismissal
disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong, thereafter, no further
punishment/penalty is imposed by the Division Bench of the High
Court except denial of back wages. As per the settled position of
law, even in a case where the punishment is found to be
disproportionate to the misconduct committed and pro

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