UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI

Citation: [2024] 6 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 08-05-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 429 : 2024 INSC 392
Union of India & Ors. 
v. 
Santosh Kumar Tiwari
(Civil Appeal No. 6135 of 2024)
08 May 2024
[Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J. B. Pardiwala and  
Manoj Misra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 
to the extent it provides for punishments other than those specified 
in Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, is 
ultra vires the CRPF Act and as such inoperable and void; whether 
the punishment of compulsory retirement from service could have 
been imposed upon the respondent (a Head Constable in CRPF) 
by relying upon the provisions of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules; 
whether the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed suffers 
from any procedural infirmity and / or is shockingly disproportionate 
to the proven misconduct of the respondent.
Headnotes†
Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 – Rule 27 – Central 
Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 – Section 11 – Punishment 
of compulsory retirement prescribed in Rule 27, if ultra vires 
the CRPF Act:
Held: The rule-making power of the Central Government found 
in Section 18 is in broad terms – The Central Government is not 
only empowered to make rules for regulating the award of minor 
punishment under Section 11 but also to carry out the purposes 
of the Act which includes superintendence of, and control over, 
the Force as well as its administration – The delegate cannot 
override the Act either by exceeding the authority or by making 
provisions inconsistent with the Act however, when the enabling 
Act itself permits its modification by rules, the rules made prevail 
over the provision in the Act – While enacting the CRPF Act 
the legislative intent was not to declare that only those minor 
punishments could be imposed as are specified in Section 
11 of the CRPF Act – Rather, it was left open for the Central 
Government to frame rules to carry out the purposes of the Act 
430
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and the punishments imposable were subject to the rules framed 
under the Act – Section 8 vests the superintendence and control 
over the Force in the Central Government – ‘Control’ is a word 
of wide amplitude and includes disciplinary control – Therefore, 
if the CRPF Act envisages vesting of control over the Force in 
the Central Government and the various punishments imposable 
under Section 11 are subject to the rules made under the Act, the 
Central Government in exercise of its general rule-making power, 
to ensure full and effective control over the Force, can prescribe 
punishments other than those specified in that section, including the 
punishment of compulsory retirement – To keep the Force efficient, 
weeding out undesirable elements therefrom is essential and is 
a facet of control over the Force, which the Central Government 
has over the Force by virtue of Section 8 of the CRPF Act – Thus, 
to ensure effective control over the Force, if rules are framed, in 
exercise of general rule-making power, prescribing the punishment 
of compulsory retirement, the same cannot be said to be ultra vires 
Section 11 of the CRPF Act, particularly when sub-section (1) of 
Section 11 clearly mentions that the power exercisable therein 
is subject to any rules made under the Act – The punishment of 
compulsory retirement prescribed by Rule 27 is intra vires the 
CRPF Act and is one of the punishments imposable – In the 
present case, respondent was part of a disciplined force and was 
found guilty of assaulting his colleague – Punishment awarded not 
shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct – Rather, 
considering his past service, already a sympathetic view was 
taken in the matter and no further latitude needs be shown – The 
punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to the respondent 
is affirmed – Impugned order of the High Court set aside. [Paras 
17, 29, 30-32, 35, 36]
Service Law – Service jurisprudence – Punishments – 
Compulsory retirement:
Held: Ordinarily a person in service cannot be visited with a 
punishment not specified in the contract of service or the law 
governing such service – Punishments may be specified either in 
the contract of service or in the Act or the rules governing such 
service – Compulsory retirement is a well-accepted method of 
removing dead wood from the cadre without affecting his entitlement 
for retirement benefits, if otherwise payable – It is another form 
of terminating the service 

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