UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus EX. CONSTABLE RAM KARAN

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 300 · Decided: 11-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
300
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
EX. CONSTABLE RAM KARAN
(Civil Appeal No(s). 6723 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 11, 2021
[AJAY RASTOGI AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]
Service law: Departmental inquiries – Quantum of punishment
– Judicial review of – On facts, allegations against constable of
CRPF that he threatened the Doctor-complainant, misbehaved and
abused and injured him and made false allegations against him of
sexual harassment to his wife – Disciplinary inquiry against the
Constable – Imposition of penalty of removal from service confirmed
by the appellate/revisional authority – However , the High Court
substituted the penalty of removal from service with confinement of
the constable from 1.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. in quarter guard jail –
On appeal, held: It was the disciplinary authority, or the appellate
authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment to
be given to the delinquent employee – Keeping in view the
seriousness of the misconduct committed by such an employee, it is
not open for the Courts to assume and usurp the function of the
disciplinary authority – Even in cases where the punishment imposed
by the disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to the
conscience of the Court, normally the disciplinary authority or the
appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the question of
imposition of penalty – Scope of judicial review on the quantum of
punishment is available only when the penalty imposed appears to
be shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct that the
Courts would frown upon – Even in such a case, after setting aside
the penalty order, it is to be left to the disciplinary/appellate authority
to take a call and it is not for the Court to substitute its decision by
prescribing the quantum of punishment – However, it is only in rare
and exceptional cases where the court might substitute its own view
as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishment that too
after assigning cogent reasons – Interference made by the High
Court is in a cavalier manner while recording the finding of penalty
to be disproportionate without taking into consideration the
seriousness of the misconduct committed by the respondent which
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 300
300
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
301
is unpardonable and not sustainable in law – High Court overlooked
the Scheme of the 1949 Act, thus, the interference made by the High
Court in substituting punishment is unsustainable and set aside –
Central Reserve Force Police Act, 1949 – ss. 9, 10, 11 – Central
Reserve Force Police Rules 1955 – r. 27.
Removal and dismissal from service – Difference between –
Held: Both stand on the same footing and both terminate the
relationship of employer/employee – Only difference between the
two is that in the case of dismissal, it precludes the employee from
seeking future employment in the Government while in the case of
removal, he is not disqualified from any future employment.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The scheme of Section 11 of the Central
Reserve Force Police Act, 1949 mandates that the competent
authority may, subject to rules made thereunder, award in lieu of,
or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more
punishment if found guilty of misconduct in his capacity as member
of the force. The use of words ‘in lieu of, or in addition to,
suspension or dismissal’, appearing in Section 11(1) clearly
indicates that the authorities mentioned therein are empowered
to award punishment of suspension or dismissal to member of
the force who is found guilty and in addition to, or in lieu thereof,
the punishment mentioned in clause (a) to (e) may also be
awarded. [Para 15, 16][313-B-D]
1.2 More heinous offences or less heinous offences
prescribe penalty of sentence of imprisonment if member of the
force is found guilty. At the same time, Section 11 is clear and
unambiguous and prescribe those minor punishments which the
competent authority may award in a departmental inquiry in lieu
of or in addition to suspension or dismissal any one or more of
the punishments to member of the force as referred under clauses
(a) to (e) of Section 11(1) of the Act 1949 even if the member has
not been prosecuted for an offence under Section 9 or Section 10
of the Act. [Para 17][313-D-E]
1.3 Removal and dismissal from service stand on the same
footing and both terminate the relationship of employer/employee.
The only difference between the two is that in the case of dismiss

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