UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus DILIP KUMAR MALLICK

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 1056 · Decided: 05-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1056
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 1056
1056
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
DILIP KUMAR MALLICK
(Civil Appeal No. 2754 of 2022)
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 26402 OF 2019)
APRIL 5, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Service law: Central Reserve Police Force – Punishment of
Removal – In the instant case, respondent was removed from the
service on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him
for offence under ss.341, 323, 294, 337, 506 r/w s.34 IPC before
the competent court but, while filling up the verification roll, he
concealed the said fact and such an act was prejudicial to the
discipline of CRPF – Appellate Authority declined to interfere with
the decision of the Disciplinary Authority – Respondent appealed
before the High Court, and the Single Judge dismissed the appeal –
However, Division Bench of the High Court held that the punishment
of removal from service was too harsh and directed the appellants
to impose ‘any lesser punishment as deemed just and proper’ –
Hence instant appeal – Held: Admittedly, at the time of filling up
the verification roll, the criminal case was pending – Respondent
cannot feign ignorance about the said case because he indeed
surrendered before the Trial Court and was granted bail – He had
indeed left the relevant columns in the verification roll blank; and
thereby, had been wanting in forthrightness while filling up the
verification roll for employment – That being the position, the
findings whereby he is held guilty of misconduct of suppression/
concealment of material information, cannot be faulted at – In fact,
such findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
Authority were affirmed by the Single Judge as also by the Division
Bench in the order impugned – Division Bench was not justified in
interfering with the quantum of punishment – In the given set of
facts and circumstances, where suppression of relevant information
is not a matter of dispute, there cannot be any legal basis for the
Court to interfere in the manner that the employer be directed to
impose ‘any lesser punishment’, as directed by the Division Bench
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1057
of the High Court – The submissions seeking to evoke sympathy
and calling for leniency cannot lead to any relief in favour of the
respondent.
Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC
471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445 – relied on.
Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar
(2011) 4 SCC 644 : [2011] 3 SCR 964 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 3 SCR 964
referred to
Para 5
[2016] 7 SCR 445
relied on
Para 7.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2754
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.03.2019 of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Appeal No.223 of 2018.
B. V. Balaram Das, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, G. S. Makkar, Ms. Nidhi
Khanna, A. K. Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.
Pijush K. Roy, Mrs. Kakali Roy, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Rajan K.
Chourasia, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was passed by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge herein is to the judgment and order dated
25.03.2019 in Writ Appeal No. 223 of 2018, whereby the Division Bench
of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, in partial disapproval of the
order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court in Writ Petition(C) No. 24085 of 2018, interfered with the
punishment of removal from service, as awarded to the respondent; and
directed the present appellants to impose ‘any lesser punishment as
deemed just and proper’.
3. The only question for consideration in this appeal is, as to whether
the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in interfering with the
quantum of punishment awarded to the respondent? The background
aspects may be noticed to the extent relevant for the present purpose.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DILIP KUMAR MALLICK
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1058
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
4. In the year 2003, the respondent was appointed under the
Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’) Group Centre, Bhubaneswar.
While continuing in service, a departmental inquiry was initiated against
him on the allegations that though he was involved in Kendrapara Police
Station Case No. 349 dated 26.09.2001 for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 323, 294, 337, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and was charge-sheeted for the said offences on 01.12.2001; and
though the said criminal case was pending before the competent Cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.