Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2177 OF 2006

The Commandant, 22 Battalion, CRPF Srinagar, C/o 56/APO & Ors.               …     Appellants

Versus

Surinder Kumar         … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

This is an appeal against the order dated 12.02.2004 of  

the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in  

L.P.A. No.600-A 1999 (for short ‘the impugned order’).

2. The  facts  very  briefly  are  that  the  respondent  was  

working as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (for  

short  ‘the  CRPF’).   A  complaint  was  lodged  against  the  

respondent.   It  was  alleged  in  the  complaint  that  he  was  

detailed  with  vehicle  no.25  to  carry  patrolling  party  on  

Chandel  Palel  Road but  he  left  the  vehicle  unattended and  

absented  himself  without  permission  of  his  superior  officer

and reported on his own after 20 minutes.  It was also alleged  

in  the  complaint  that  while  he  was  on  duty,  he  consumed  

illicit alcohol and in an inebriated state of mind misbehaved  

with his superior officer H.N. Singh, snatched his AK-47 rifle  

and  pointed  the  barrel  of  the  rifle  to  him  and  on  the  

intervention  of  Lachhi  Ram,  Assistant  Commandant,  the  

barrel  of  the  rifle  was  pointed  upward  and  an  untoward  

incident was avoided.  A copy of the complaint was served on  

the respondent and a disciplinary enquiry was conducted and  

the Assistant Commandant-cum-Magistrate First Class in his  

order dated 10.06.1993 found the respondent guilty of charges  

and convicted him and sentenced him to imprisonment till the  

rising of the Court.  By a separate order dated 10.06.1993, the  

Commandant also dismissed the respondent from service.

3. Aggrieved,  the  respondent  challenged  the  order  dated  

10.06.1993  passed  by  the  Assistant  Commandant-cum-

Magistrate First Class as well as the order of dismissal dated  

10.06.1993  passed  by  the  Commandant  in  Writ  Petition  

No.555 of 1994 before the High Court.  The Learned Single  

Judge  dismissed  the  writ  petition  on  09.11.1998.   The  

respondent challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in  

2

L.P.A.  No.  600-A  1999  and  by  the  impugned  order,  the  

Division Bench held that the punishment of dismissal of the  

respondent was disproportionate in as much as his conviction  

was till  the rising of  the  court for  having committed a less  

heinous offence.  By the impugned order, the Division Bench  

of  the  High Court  directed the  appellants  to  reconsider  the  

nature  and  quantum  of  punishment  awarded  to  the  

respondent and accordingly grant him consequential benefits.

4. Mr.  Ashok  Bhan,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants,  

submitted  that  the  respondent  was  punished  with  

imprisonment for one day by the judgment dated 10.06.1993  

of the Assistant Commandant-cum-Magistrate First Class for  

having committed a less heinous offence under Section 10(n)  

of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for short ‘the  

Act’).  He submitted that Section 12(1) of the Act provides that  

every person sentenced under the Act to imprisonment may be  

dismissed from the CRPF and in exercise of  this power the  

Commandant 22 Battalion, CRPF, dismissed the respondent  

from service by order dated 10.06.1993.  He submitted that  

the findings in the judgment of the Assistant Commandant-

cum-Magistrate  in the order under  Section 10(n)  of  the  Act  

3

would show that the respondent was guilty of grave charges of  

indiscipline  and  therefore  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  

Court  was  not  right  in  coming  to  the  conclusion  in  the  

impugned order that the punishment of dismissal from service  

was disproportionate.

5. Mr.  J.P.  Dhanda,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondent, on the other hand, submitted that Section 10 of  

the  Act  is  titled  ‘Less  heinous  offences’  and  it  is  under  

Section  10(n)  that  the  respondent  has  been  punished  for  

imprisonment till the rising of the court.  He argued that for a  

less heinous offence and for an imprisonment till rising of the  

Court,  the  respondent  could  not  have  been dismissed  from  

service.  He submitted that in Union of India vs. Parma Nanda  

(AIR 1989 SC 1185), this Court has held that even in cases  

where an enquiry is dispensed with under the proviso (b) to  

Article 311(2) of the Constitution if the penalty impugned is  

apparently unreasonable or uncalled for, having regard to the  

nature of the criminal charge, the Administrative Tribunal may  

step in to render substantial justice and may remit the matter  

to  the  competent  authority  for  reconsideration  or  itself  

substitute one of the penalties.  He submitted that the High  

4

Court has relied upon the decision in Union of India vs. Parma  

Nanda (supra) and has set aside the order of dismissal without  

going  into  the  merits  of  the  findings  of  the  Assistant  

Commandant-cum  Magistrate  on  the  charges  against  the  

respondent.

6. We  have  considered  the  submissions  of  the  learned  

counsel for the parties and we find that the respondent has  

been  imprisoned  by  the  judgment  of  the  Assistant  

Commandant-cum Magistrate under Section 10(n) of the Act  

and has been dismissed from service by a separate order of the  

Commandant, 22 Battalion, CRPF passed under Section 12(1)  

of the Act.  Sections 10(n) and 12(1) of the Act are extracted  

hereinbelow:

“10.  Less heinous offences:- Every member of the  Force who

(n)  is  guilty  of  any  act  or  omission  which, though not specified in this Act,  is  prejudicial  to  good  order  and  discipline; or

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term  which  may  extend  to  one  year,  or  with  the  fine  which  may  extend  to  three  months’  pay,  or  with  both.

12.  Place  of  imprisonment  and  liability  to  dismissal  on  imprisonment.-(1)  Every  person  

5

sentenced under this Act to imprisonment may be  dismissed from the Force, and shall further be liable  to forfeiture of pay, allowance and any other moneys  due to him as well as of any medals and decorations  received by him.”

It will be clear from Section 10(n) of the Act that a member of  

the  CRPF  who  is  guilty  of  any  act  or  omission  which  is  

prejudicial  to  good  order  and  discipline  is  punishable  with  

imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with  

fine  which may extend to  three  months’  pay,  or  with  both.  

Section 12(1) of the Act provides that every person sentenced  

under this Act to imprisonment may be dismissed from the  

CRPF.  The word “may” in Section 12(1) of the Act confers a  

discretion  on  the  competent  authority  whether  or  not  to  

dismiss  a  member of  the  CRPF from service  pursuant  to  a  

sentence of imprisonment under the Act and while exercising  

the  discretion,  the  competent  authority  has  to  consider  

various relevant factors including the nature of the offence for  

which he has been sentenced to imprisonment.  

7. In  the  present  case,  the  acts  of  indiscipline  of  the  

respondent which have been established beyond doubt by the  

Assistant  Commandant-cum-Magistrate  are  that  the  

respondent left his party without permission while on duty in  

6

the operational area for 20 minutes and returned on his own  

and he got enraged when H.N. Singh, Assistant Commandant,  

decided to take him for medical examination when he found  

him to be in a state of intoxication and he snatched the AK-47  

rifle of H.N. Singh and pointed the barrel towards him and due  

to the intervention of Lachhi Ram, Assistant Commandant, an  

untoward  incident  was  avoided.   These  acts  of  indiscipline  

were obviously prejudicial to the good order and discipline and  

when committed by a member of a disciplined force like the  

CRPF were serious enough to warrant dismissal from service.   

8.  The Division Bench of the High Court has taken a view  

in  the  impugned  order  that  as  the  respondent  has  been  

punished for imprisonment for a less heinous offence and only  

till the rising of the court, the punishment of dismissal was  

disproportionate.  The Division Bench of the High Court failed  

to  appreciate  that  for  less  heinous  offences  enumerated  in  

Section 10 of the Act, a person was liable for punishment with  

imprisonment and under Section 12(1) of the Act every person  

sentenced  under  the  Act  to  imprisonment  was  liable  to  be  

dismissed  from  the  CRPF.   In  other  words,  the  legislative  

intent was that once a member of the CRPF was sentenced for  

7

imprisonment under the Act, he was also liable for dismissal  

from service.  The Division Bench of the High Court, in our  

considered  opinion,  should  have  looked  into  the  acts  of  

indiscipline proved against the respondent for which he has  

been sentenced to  imprisonment  and then decided whether  

the  dismissal  of  the  respondent  from  service  was  

disproportionate to the gravity of acts of indiscipline.  As we  

have  already  held,  the  acts  of  indiscipline  for  which  the  

respondent had been sentenced for imprisonment were serious  

and grave for  a disciplined force.  Therefore,  the competent  

authority was right in imposing the punishment of dismissal  

from service.

9. Moreover, it appears from the impugned order that the  

High  Court  has  in  exercise  of  power  of  judicial  review  

interfered with  the  punishment  of  dismissal  on  the  ground  

that it was disproportionate.  In Union of India vs. R.K. Sharma  

(AIR 2001 SC 3053), this Court has taken the view that the  

punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should  

be strikingly disproportionate to warrant interference by the  

High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and it was  

only  in  an  extreme  case,  where  on  the  face  of  it  there  is  

8

perversity  or  irrationality  that  there  can  be  judicial  review  

under  Articles  226  or  227  or  under  Article  32  of  the  

Constitution.  Since this is not one of those cases where the  

punishment  of  dismissal  was  strikingly  disproportionate  or  

where on the face of it there was perversity or irrationality, the  

Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have interfered  

with the order of dismissal from service.

10. We,  accordingly,  allow  this  appeal  and  set  aside  the  

impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court.  No  

costs.

.……………………….J.                                                            (P. Sathasivam)

………………………..J.                                                            (A. K. Patnaik) New Delhi, October 20, 2011.    

9