Summary
A CRPF constable was dismissed after an enquiry under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 for consuming liquor, misbehaving with and threatening senior officers, and insubordination. The Rajasthan High Court's Division Bench ordered his reinstatement. It held that dismissal was disproportionate because, under Section 10 of the CRPF Act, intoxication while off duty is only a 'less heinous' offence. The Supreme Court restored the dismissal. The heinous and less heinous classification governs punishments under Sections 9 and 10, not disciplinary action for indiscipline. Following Surinder Kumar, courts may interfere only with a strikingly disproportionate penalty. Even then the matter should go back to the disciplinary authority, not be decided by the court.
Issues
- Whether dismissal of a CRPF constable for misbehaving with and threatening superiors under the influence of liquor was disproportionate because intoxication when not on duty is a less heinous offence under Section 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949.
Provisions considered
- Sections 9, 10 and 11, Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949Whether an offence is heinous or less heinous bears on punishments under Sections 9 and 10, not on dismissal in disciplinary proceedings for indiscipline or insubordination; following Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF v. Surinder Kumar, even a person punished under Section 10(n) can be dismissed. (¶ 6.1)
- Rule 27, Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955Dismissal was imposed after a departmental enquiry following the prescribed procedure, with the charges held proved. (¶ 6)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaInterference with a penalty on proportionality is warranted only where it is strikingly disproportionate, perverse or irrational on its face. (¶¶ 6.2, 6.3)
Held
- Misbehaving with and threatening superior officers, even under intoxication, and insubordination are grave misconduct that cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force, and dismissal on such proved charges is not disproportionate, let alone strikingly so. (¶¶ 6, 6.3)
- The High Court's reasoning that the respondent was deemed to have committed a less heinous offence under Section 10 is irrelevant to disciplinary punishment for indiscipline or insubordination. (¶ 6.1)
- Even where a penalty is found disproportionate, the matter must be remitted to the disciplinary authority, whose prerogative it is to impose an appropriate penalty; the High Court could not simply order reinstatement with denial of back wages. (¶ 6.4)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 219 of 2023 allowed; the Rajasthan High Court judgment dated 01.09.2017 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 303 of 2005 quashed and set aside and the penalty of dismissal restored; no costs.