UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus DILER SINGH

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 473 · Decided: 30-06-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 4 S.C.R. 473 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
OILER SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No.1133 of2016) 
JUNE 30, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Central Reserve Police Force Act, J949- s.J J (1) - Punishment 
of dismissal from service under - Proportionality of - On facts, 
CRPF constable went outside the campus-Naxalwadi Area without 
the permission of the competent authority - Went to the market, 
consumed liquor and quarrelled with civilians - Punishment of 
dismissal from service by disciplinary authority in exercise of power 
conferred u/s.11 - Jn suit, the trial court set aside the dismissal 
order holding that the disciplinary authority not entitled to convert 
charge uls.JJ(J), a minor penalty to major pe1ialty and that it had 
;urisdiction to try the suit - Jn appeal, appellate court held that the . 
trial court had no jurisdiction to try the suit - In second appeal, the 
High Court held that the allegations levelled against the constable 
were not of serious nature and did not attract the penalty of dismissal 
- On appeal held: In exercise of power u/s. J J (]), punishment of 
dismissal can be imposed - When member of the disciplined force 
deviates from the discipline and behaves in an untoward manner 
which is not conceived of. it cannot be said that the punishment of 
dismissal is disproportionate and shocking to the judicial conscience 
- Thus, the punishment is absolutely proportionate - Further, the 
High Court did not frame any substantial question of law as required 
u/s. J 00 CPC - High Court while admitting the second appeal should 
have framed the substantial question of law - Thus, the order passed 
by the High Court set aside and that of the appellate court restored 
and the sui( is dismissed - Code of Civil Procedure, J 908 - s. J 00 -
Central Reserve Police Force Rules, J955 - r.27-A(l). 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 On a perusal of the judgment of the High Court, 
it is evident that it has not framed any substantial question of law. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The High Court while admitting the second appeal should have 
H 
473 
474 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
framed the substantial question(s) of law which would have been 
adverted to at the time of final hearing. [Paras 17, 18) 
B 
c 
D 
1.2 The said view that s. 11 of the Central Rescue Police 
Force Act, 1949 deals with only those minor punishments which 
may be awarded in a departmental inquiry and a plain reading 
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 u/s. 9 or Section 10, is concurred with. 
It is opined that under the scheme of the Act, in exercise of power 
under Section 11(1) of the Act punishment of dismissal can be 
imposed. [Para 20) [482-F-G; 483-B) 
1.3 The High Court to reverse the conclusion of the first 
appellate Court extensively quoted from the decision of the High 
Court rendered in Akhilesfl Kumar. The Division Bench in Akfli/esh 
Kumar's case has clearly held that the delinquent employee, being 
a member of the Force, could not have left the camp without 
prior permission. It has also opined when a personnel is posted 
in a camp, he is not free to move as per his choice even during 
the period when he is not on duty. However, as· is manifest, the 
Division Bench opined that the imposition of dismissal as a 
punishment, which is a major one, could not have been imposed 
E . by the disciplinary authority. The said opinion was expressed 
without referring to the position of law that has been clearly laid 
down in the case of Ghu/am Mohd. Bhat case .. Thus, the basic 
premise is erroneous. In the impugned order, the writ court has, 
after reproducing the passage from Akhi/esh Kumar's, opined that 
F 
G 
H 
the controversy is covered by the judgment rendered by the High 
Court of Calcutta. It is extremely significant to note that the Single 
Judge has not even made an effort to appreciate the decision in 
Gllltlam Mohd. Bhat case though the same was relied upon by 
the first appellate Judge. Thrust of reasoning of the first appellate 
court was that a major punishment of dismissal could be imposed 
in law. It is quite unfortunate that the High Court has dislodged 
the finding without any analysis but reproducing a passage from 
the Calcutta High Court which had not referred. to the ratio laid 
down by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Ghulam Mohd. Blmt's 
case. Thus, the co

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