Supreme Court Upholds Removal of SSB Head Constable for Indiscipline

The case of Anil Kumar Upadhyay vs. The Director General, SSB & Others revolves around the disciplinary action taken against a Head Constable in the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) for entering a Mahila Barrack at midnight, compromising the security of female occupants. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the disciplinary authority, setting aside the High Court’s interference with the punishment.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Anil Kumar Upadhyay, was serving as a Head Constable (Ministerial) in the 15th Battalion of the SSB in Bongaigaon. He was charged with violation of discipline under Section 43 of the SSB Act, 2007 for entering the Mahila Barrack at around 00:15 hours on April 14-15, 2013.

Key events:

Six female constables apprehended him inside the barracks.
He was placed under suspension, and a departmental inquiry was initiated.
Following an inquiry, he was initially dismissed on April 29, 2013, but later, the penalty was reduced to removal from service on June 21, 2013.
His departmental appeal was rejected on January 24, 2014.
He challenged the order in the Gauhati High Court, which ruled in his favor.
The High Court remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority for imposing a lesser punishment.
The disciplinary authority appealed to the Supreme Court.

Arguments of the Petitioner (Anil Kumar Upadhyay)

He argued that the entry into the Mahila Barrack was unintentional and lacked any malicious intent.
The disciplinary process was allegedly flawed and violated the principles of natural justice.
His punishment was disproportionate compared to another accused, Constable Rupasi Barman, who was found guilty of permitting him entry but was only penalized with forfeiture of two years’ seniority.
His past record was unblemished, having received three cash rewards for good conduct.

Arguments of the Respondents (SSB Disciplinary Authority)

The prosecution argued that the appellant’s entry into the Mahila Barrack at midnight was a grave act of indiscipline.
The inquiry was conducted in strict adherence to SSB Rules, and he was given full opportunity to defend himself.
His misconduct compromised the security of female personnel, justifying strict action.
The punishment of removal from service was appropriate, as he was part of a disciplined force.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, ruled against the appellant and upheld his removal from service.

1. Head Constable’s Conduct Was Indefensible

The Court emphasized that entering a Mahila Barrack at midnight was a serious offense.

“Such an act of indiscipline leading to compromising the security of female personnel cannot be tolerated.”

2. Courts Must Exercise Caution in Interfering with Disciplinary Actions

The Court held that judicial review is limited in such cases.

“The quantum of punishment is for the disciplinary authority to decide, and courts should not interfere unless the penalty is shockingly disproportionate.”

3. Disciplinary Authority Followed Due Procedure

The Court rejected arguments about procedural lapses.

“All due opportunities were provided to the delinquent, and the inquiry adhered to legal norms.”

4. Punishment of Constable Rupasi Barman Is Not a Justification

The Court dismissed the argument that his punishment was harsher than that of the female constable.

“A male Head Constable’s misconduct cannot be equated with that of a female sentry on duty.”

5. Security Concerns Justify the Punishment

The Court reaffirmed the importance of maintaining discipline in security forces.

“If such conduct is condoned, it would compromise the security of Mahila Barracks.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
The order of removal from service was upheld.
The High Court’s ruling was quashed.

Impact of the Judgment

Strengthens disciplinary standards in security forces.
Clarifies that judicial interference in disciplinary actions is limited.
Ensures that security breaches in sensitive areas are dealt with strictly.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Anil Kumar Upadhyay vs. The Director General, SSB reaffirms that disciplinary actions within security forces must be upheld if conducted lawfully. The decision ensures that indiscipline, particularly in sensitive areas like Mahila Barracks, is addressed with severity to maintain the integrity of security institutions.

Petitioner Name: Anil Kumar Upadhyay.
Respondent Name: The Director General, SSB and Others.
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
Place Of Incident: Bongaigaon, Assam.
Judgment Date: 20-04-2022.

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

Download Judgment: anil-kumar-upadhyay-vs-the-director-general-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-20-04-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by B.V. Nagarathna
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2022
See all petitions in 2022 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