Blog

Case title:  Union of India v. Santosh Kumar Tiwar

Case no: Civil Appeal No.6135 of 2024

Dated on:  8th May 2024

Quorum: Justice D.Y.Chandrachud, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra

Facts of the case:

This appeal is against the judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, preferred by the appellants against the judgment of the Single Judge has been dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed. The respondent was a Head Constable in Central Reserve Police Force. He was charge-sheeted for assault and abusing his fellow colleague. In the enquiry proceedings as the charges were proved, the respondent was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 16.02.2006. The respondent filed a departmental appeal, which was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General (P), CRPF on 28.07.2006. The respondent filed a Writ Petition before a Single Judge Bench who vide order dated 14.01.2020 allowed the writ petition, on the ground that the punishment of compulsory retirement was not punishment specified in Section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. Aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants preferred writ appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court found no merit in the writ appeal and dismissed the same giving rise to the present appeal.

Issue: 

1. Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement can be imposed by relying upon the provisions of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules? 
2. Whether Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules provides for punishments other than those specified in Section 11 of the CRPF Act? 
3. Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement suffers from any procedural infirmity?

Legal provisions: 

Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules 
Section 11 of the CRPF Act.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The only ground pressed by the original petitioner was that the punishment of compulsory retirement is not imposable under Section 11 of the CRPF Act is not correct. The High Court failed to consider that Section 116 of the CRPF Act has expressly made rules where the Commandant or any other authority or officer may award in lieu of or in addition to suspension or dismissal any one or more punishments whom he considers guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or other misconduct can award punishments such as (a) reduction in rank; (b) fine not exceeding one month’s pay and allowances; (c) confinement (e) removal from any office. The punishment for compulsory retirement is specifically provided as one of the punishments imposable on a non-gazetted officer, like the respondent. The impugned order of the High Court is in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the rules. Once an enquiry is held and charge of gross indiscipline is found proved, and further, the Respondent being a member of a disciplined force, the punishment awarded, was not liable to be interfered with by the High Court.

Contentions of the Respondent:

Punishment of compulsory retirement as specified in Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules is ultra vires the provisions of Section 11 of the CRPF Act, and no punishment beyond what is specified therein can be imposed. Punishment which is not contemplated under the statute cannot be introduced by way of a rule. Dismissal and compulsory retirement are two different kinds of punishment and cannot be treated as interchangeable. In the absence delegation of power to frame rules, introducing the punishment of compulsory retirement, is ultra vires the CRPF Act; The charge levelled on the original petitioner was not established, as there were no eyewitness to prove the alleged claim. The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority acted in a mechanical manner.  

Courts judgement and analysis:

The CRPF Act is “an Act to provide for the constitution and regulation of an armed Central Reserve Police Force (for short the Force)”. The superintendence and control over, vests in the Central Government. Section 9 enumerates “more heinous offences” and Section 10 “less heinous offences”, For “more heinous offences”, the punishment is transportation for life or for a term of not less than seven years or with imprisonment which may extend to 14 years or with fine. The punishment for “less heinous offences” is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine. The Commandant or any other authority subject to any rules under the Act, award in addition to, suspension or dismissal anyone or more of the punishments specified therein guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, other misconduct. Section 18 confers rule-making power on the Central Government. An overview of the CRPF Act, makes it clear that the Central Government has overall superintendence and control over the Force. The CRPF Rules provide for imposition of the punishment of compulsory retirement though the CRPF Act wherein the Act itself does not provide in specific terms. In Subash Chandra Yadav it was observed that “Before a rule can have the effect of a statutory provision, two conditions are to be complied (1) it must conform to the provisions of the statute (2) it must also come within the scope and purview of the rule-making power of the authority framing the rule” Section 11 does not use common expressions such as “dismissal from service” or “removal from service” while describing the punishments, though, Rule 27 uses those expressions. The High Court opined that only punishments which can be awarded under the section are reduction in rank, fine, confinement to quarters and removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the Force. This interpretation is not correct, cause as per the section punishments may be awarded in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal. The words “in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal”, shows that the authorities can award punishment of dismissal or suspension who is found guilty in addition to, punishment mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) may also be awarded. To determine whether the punishment of compulsory retirement is ultra vires the CRPF Act, it would be apposite to first examine the scope of rule-making power conferred on the Central Government by the statute. In order to decide whether Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, which prescribes additional punishment of compulsory retirement, is intra vires or ultra vires of the CRPF Act, the following facts needs to be considered (a) whether the intention of the legislature was allow the Central Government to prescribe any other minor punishment than what has already been prescribed (b) whether it conflicts with provisions of the CRPF Act. While enacting the CRPF Act, the intention of legislature was not to declare that only minor punishments could be imposed as it was left open for the Central Government to frame rules to carry out the purposes of the Act and the punishments. The concept of “control”, as per P. Ramantha Aiyer’s Advanced Law Lexicon implies that the controlling authority must be in a position to dominate the affairs of its subordinate. The word ‘control’ is very wide and includes disciplinary control. Hence, if the CRPF Act envisages vesting of control over the Force in the Central Government then the various punishments imposable under Section 11 are subject to the rules made under the Act. The Central Government can ensure full and effective control over the Force including the punishment of compulsory retirement. It is therefore held that punishment of compulsory retirement is intra vires the CRPF Act and is an imposable punishment. There is no such perversity in the enquiry report. There is no error in the conduct of the enquiry. There is no need to interfere with the punishment and the appeal is allowed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.

Click here to read the judgement