Union of India and Ors. v. Gulam Mohd. Bhat

- A B # UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. GULAM MOHD. BHAT ## OCTOBER 20, 2005 [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.) ## _Service Matter:_ _Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949-Sections 9, JO and I I-Central Reserve Plaice Rules, 1955-Rule 27-Emp/oyee reporting for duty long after_ C _sanctioned leave-Competent Authority passing an order of removal from service-High Court quashing the order of removal on the ground that it is without jurisdiction under the Act-Correctness of-Held, the competent authority has jurisdiction to pass an order of removal from service under the Act for such misconduct._ D Respondent was working as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force. The respondent reported for duty long after the sanctioned leave period without prior sanction. The competent authority initiated departmental proceedings for misconduct and passed an order of removal from service. The respondent filed a Writ Petition before High Court E challenging the order. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition of the respondent on the ground that the order of removal is without jurisdiction in terms of section lO(m) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Rules, 1955. In appeal to the Court, the appellants contended that the F punishments under section 11 of the Act were in lieu of or in addition to an order of suspension or dismissal; and that Rule 27 of the Rules permits the authority to pass an order of removal from service for such misconduct. ## Allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1.1. The use of words 'in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal', appearing in Section 11(1) of the Act shows that the authorities are empowered to award punishment of dismissal or suspension 367 H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 368 .. A to a member of force who is found guilty and in addition to, or in lieu thereof, the punishment mentioned in clause (a) to (e) of Section I I of the Act. [373-D) 1.2. Section I I of the Act deals with only those minor punishments which may be awarded in a departmenta1 inquiry and a plain reading B 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 under Section 9 or Section IO of the Act. Hence, the order of removal from service suffers from no infirmity. (373-F; 374-D) _Dr. Dattatraya Mahadev Nadkarni (since deceased by his L.Rs.)_ v. C _Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay,_ AIR (I992) SC 786, _State of U.P._ v. _Ashok Kumar Singh,_ [I996) I SCC 302 **and** _Mithilesh Singh_ v. _Union of India and Ors.,_ (2003) 3 SCC 309, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4950of1999. D From the Judgment and Order dated 5.8.97 of the Jammu and Kashmir .High Court in S.W.P. No. 2243 of 1993. A. Sharan, Additional Solicitor General, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Ms. Sushma Suri and P. Parmeswaran for the Appellants. E Ugra Shankar Prasad (N.P.) for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Challenge in this appeal is by the Union of F India and its functionaries to the judgment rendered by a learned Singie Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court holding that the order of removal from service passed by the departmental authorities in terms of Section 11 (I) Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (in short the 'Act') read with Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Rules, 1955 (in short the 'Rules') is without jurisdiction. G The background facts need to be noted in brief: The respondent as a Consta,ble in Central Reserve Police Force (in short 'CRPF') joined the duty at Srinagar after being detailed for duty from Assam along with a group of fresh trainees. He applied for leave on 18th H January, 1992 which was sanctioned. He reported for duty long after the 369 U.0.1. _v._ GULAMMOHD. BHAT [PASAYAT,J.] - - ·• sanctioned leave period. was over on 8th December, 1992. Departmental A proceedings were initiated for misconduct on account of overstay beyond sanctioned leave for 315 days without prior permission or sanction from the competent authority. On 21.6.1993 on the basis of the report of the inquiry officer, the competent authority passed order of removal from service. The same was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition in the Jammu B and Kashmir High Court. By impugned order dated 5.8.1997 a learned Single Judge held that since the respondent was proceeded against in terms of Section lO(m) of the Act read with Rule 27 of the Rules, the order of removal is without jurisdiction. It was observed that Section 1 O(m) only provided for minor punishment and did not provide for the punishment of removal from service. Accordingly the order of removal was quashed but, however, liberty C was given to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. _l_ Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants submitted that the view taken by the High Court is clearly indefensible. it was submitted that Section l I did not provide for only minor punishment. It **D** provided that the enumerated punishments were in lieu of or in addition to order of suspension or dismissal as the case may be. Rule 27 clearly permitted , . the order of removal from service and no interference by the High Court was called for. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of service. E The scope and ambit of Section 11 and Rule 27 has been called for determination in this appeal. A few provisions having relevance need to be noted. Undisputedly, overstay without sanctioned leave is dealt with in Section lO(m) of the Act. It relates to lessor offences. Section I !(I) and Rul.e 27 read as follows:- **F** ## "Section I _I-Minor Punishment:_ - {I) The Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under this Act, award _in lieu of, or in addiiion to, suspension or dismissal any one or_ G _more of the following punishments_ to any member of the Force whom.he considers to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as **a.member** of the Force, that is to say:- - ( a) ·reduced in rank; **H** 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. ## A - (b) fine of any amount not exceeding one month's pay .and allowances; - (c) confinement to quarter, lines or camp for a tenn not exceeding one month; ## B - (d) confinement in the quarter-guard for not more than twenty eight days, with or without punishment drill or extra guard, fatigue or other duty; and - (e) removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the Force. c ## D ## (Underlined for emphasis) Rule 27: _Procedure for the Award of Punishment-(_ a) The punishment shown as items I to 11 in column 2 of the table below may be inflicted or non-gazetted officers and men of the various ranks shown in each of the headings of columns 3 to 6, by the authorities named below such headings under the conditions mentioned in column 7. c: _9_ |S.<br>No|Punishment|Subedar<br>(Inspector) Inspector|Sub-<br>(Inspector) Inspector|Others<br>except<br>Const.&<br>enrolled<br>followers|Const.&<br>enrolled<br>followers|Remarks| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |I|2|3|4|5|6|7| |1<br>Dismissal or removal from the Force<br>DIGP<br>DIGP<br>Comdt.<br>Comdt.<br>To be inflicted after<br>formal departmental<br>enquiry.<br>2<br>Reduction to a lower time-scaleofpay,<br>DIGP<br>DIGP<br>Comdt.<br>Comdt.<br>Tobe inflicted after<br>grade, post or service<br>formal departmental<br>enquiry.<br>3<br>Reduction to a lower stage in the time-<br>DIGP<br>DIGP<br>Comdt.<br>Comdt.<br>-do-<br>scaleofpay for a specified period.<br>4<br>Compulsory retirement<br>DlGP<br>DIGP<br>Comdt.<br>Comdt.<br>-do-<br>5<br>Fine to pay amount not exceeding one<br>DlGP<br>DIGP<br>Comdt.<br>Comdt.<br>-do-<br>month's pay and allowances.<br>6<br>Confinementinthe Quarter Guard<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>Comdt.<br>-do-<br>exceeding seven days but not more than<br>twenty eight days with or without<br>punishment drill or extra guard fatigue<br>or other duty.||||||| |7|Stoppageofincrement.|DIGP|DIGP|Comdt.||Comdt.|-do-|| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |8|Removalfromany officeofdistinction|DIGP|DIGP|Comdt.||Comdt.|May be inflicted|| ||ofspecial emolumentinthe Force.||||||without a|formal| ||||||||departmental enquiry.|| |9|Censure|Comdt.|Comdt.|Asst.||A Comdt.||| |||||Comdt.|Or|OrCoy||| |||||Coy||Comdr.||| |||||Comdr.||Comdt.||| |10|Confinement to Quarter Guard for nor|||||||| ||more than seven days with or without|||||||| ||punishment or extra guard fatigue or|||||||| ||other duty.|||||||| |11|Confinement to Quarters lines, camp,|||||Com dt.||| ||punishment drill, fatigue duties etc.|||||||| ||for a term not exceeding one month.|||||||| r U.0.1. _v._ GULAM MOHD. BHAT [PASAYAT. J) 373 A bare perusal of Section 11 shows that it deals with minor punishment as compared to the major punishments prescribed in the preceding section. It lays down that the Commandant or any other authority or officer, as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules mad.e under the Act, award any one or more of the punishments to any member of the force who is found guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of his duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force. According to the High Court the only punishments which can be awarded under this Section are reduction in rank, fine, confinement to quarters and removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the force. In our opinion, the interpretation is not correct, because the section says that these punishments may be awarded in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal. C The use of words 'in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal', appearing in sub-section (I) of Section 11 before clauses (a) to (e) shows that the authorities mentioned therein are empowered to award punishment of dismissal or suspension to the member of force who is found guilty and in addition to, or in lieu thereof, the punishment mentioned in clause (a) to (e) D may also be awarded. It may be noted that Section 9 of the Act mentions serious or heinous offences and also prescribes penalty which may be awarded for them. Section I 0 deals with less heinous offences and clause (m) thereof shows that absence E of a member of the force without leave or without sufficient cause or overstay without sufficient cause, is also mentioned as less heinous offence and for that also a sentence of imprisonment is provided. It is, therefore, clear that Section 11 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 i{ the F delinquent is not prosecuted for an offence under Section 9 or Section I 0. It is fairly well settled position in law that removal is a form of dismissal. This Court in _Dr. Dattatraya Mahadev Nadkarni (since deceased by his L.Rs.)_ v. _Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay,_ AIR (1992) SC 786 explained that removal and dismissal from service stand on the same footing G and both bring about termination of service though every termination of service does not amount to removal or dismissal. The only difference between the two is that in the case of dismissal the employee is disqualified from future employment while in the case of removal he is not debarred from getting future employment. Therefore, dismissal has more serious consequences H 374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A in comparison to removal. In any event, Section 11(1) refers to Rules made - .· under the Act under which action can be taken. Rule 27 is part of Rules made under the Act. Rule 27 clearly permits removal by the competent authority. In the instant case the Commandant who had passed the order of removal was the competent authority to pass the order. B This Court had occasion to deal with the cases of overstay by persons belonging to disciplined forces. In _State of U.P._ v. _Ashok Kumar Singh,_ [ 1996] 1 SCC 302 the employee was a police constable and it was held that an act of indiscipline by such a person needs to be dealt with sternly. It is for the employee concerned io show how that penalty was disproportionate C to the proved charges. No mitigating circumstance has been placed by the appellant to show as to how the punishment could be characterized as disproportionate and/or shocking. (See _Mithi/esh Singh_ v. _Union of India and Ors.,_ [2003] 3 SCC 309). It has been categorically held that in a given case the order of dismissal from service cannot be faulted. In the instant case the period is more than 300 days and that too without any justifiable reason. That D being so the order of removal from service suffers from no infirmity. The High Court was not justified in interfering with the same. The order of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed but under the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. E B.S. Appeal allowed.