CRPF Disciplinary Dismissal Upheld: Supreme Court Rejects Reinstatement of Constable

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in the case of Union of India & Others vs. Constable Sunil Kumar, addressing key aspects of disciplinary proceedings within the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The case revolved around a constable’s dismissal due to misconduct, the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, and whether reinstatement was warranted.

Background of the Case

The respondent, Constable Sunil Kumar, was serving in the CRPF when he faced a departmental inquiry for misconduct. The charges included consuming country liquor while on duty and misbehaving with senior officers. Specifically, he was accused of:

Being intoxicated while on government duty.
Threatening and misbehaving with superior officers, including the Deputy Commandant and a Senior Medical Officer.
Engaging in conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline in the force.

Following an inquiry, the disciplinary authority dismissed the constable from service under Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949. The Appellate Authority upheld the dismissal. However, the respondent challenged the order before the Rajasthan High Court.

The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition. Upon appeal, the Division Bench set aside the penalty of dismissal, reasoning that:

The misconduct was not grave enough to warrant dismissal.
Since the respondent was not on ‘active duty’ when the offense occurred, the punishment was disproportionate.
Reinstatement should be granted with notional benefits but without back wages.

The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision.

Arguments by the Appellant (Union of India)

The CRPF is a disciplined force, and misconduct involving insubordination and intoxication on duty must be dealt with strictly.
The penalty of dismissal was imposed after a proper inquiry and following due process under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955.
Section 11 of the CRPF Act allows dismissal for indiscipline and insubordination, and there was no basis for the High Court to interfere.
Reliance on Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act (which distinguish between heinous and less heinous offenses) was misplaced since those provisions relate to criminal punishment, not disciplinary action.
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its view for that of the disciplinary authority.

Arguments by the Respondent (Constable Sunil Kumar)

The misconduct did not occur while he was on ‘active duty’, making the offense less severe under Section 10 of the CRPF Act.
Given his 11 years of service, the punishment of dismissal was harsh and disproportionate.
A more lenient punishment should have been considered, such as suspension or reduction in rank.

Supreme Court’s Observations

“The charges and misconduct proved against the respondent are grave and serious, particularly for a member of a disciplined force.”
“The respondent misbehaving with his superior and issuing threats cannot be tolerated in a force like the CRPF.”
“The High Court misinterpreted Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, which apply to criminal offenses, not disciplinary proceedings.”
“Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited, and courts should not interfere with punishment unless it is strikingly disproportionate.”
“In cases of insubordination in disciplined forces, punishment should be exemplary to maintain order and discipline.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority.
The Court ruled that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with a legally valid disciplinary action.
The respondent’s request for leniency was rejected, emphasizing the need for discipline in the CRPF.

Legal Precedents Considered

Union of India vs. Ram Karan (2022): Reaffirmed that punishment for indiscipline in armed forces should not be lightly interfered with.
Commandant, 22nd Battalion CRPF vs. Surinder Kumar (2011): Held that even if an offense is deemed ‘less heinous’, dismissal may be justified if it affects discipline.
Union of India vs. R.K. Sharma (2001): Established that judicial review of disciplinary actions should be minimal unless punishment is arbitrary.

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling strengthens the authority of disciplinary proceedings in armed and paramilitary forces.
It reinforces that judicial review is limited and courts should not intervene unless there is clear illegality or perversity.
The decision affirms that insubordination in disciplined forces warrants strict action, including dismissal.
By upholding the CRPF’s decision, the ruling sets a precedent for similar cases involving military and paramilitary personnel.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case underscores the principle that discipline in armed forces is paramount, and any conduct prejudicial to order must be met with strict consequences. The ruling reinforces that judicial interference in disciplinary matters should be minimal, ensuring that security forces maintain the highest standards of professionalism and discipline. The case sets a crucial precedent in upholding disciplinary actions within India’s paramilitary forces.

Petitioner Name: Union of India & Others.
Respondent Name: Constable Sunil Kumar.
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice C.T. Ravikumar.
Place Of Incident: Jaipur, Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 19-01-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: union-of-india-&-oth-vs-constable-sunil-kuma-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-19-01-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by C.T. Ravikumar
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category