Supreme Court: In an appeal against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of Orissa High Court, wherein the Court upheld the Single Judge order, allowed the petition of the accused on the ground that the punishment of compulsory retirement was not one of the punishments specified in Section 11 (1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, three-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra*, JJ. has held that the punishment of compulsory retirement prescribed by Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules is intra vires the CRPF Act and is one of the imposable punishments.
Background:
The accused was a Head Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’). He was charged with allegations of assaulting and abusing his fellow colleague. In the ensuing enquiry, the charges were found proved against the accused. As a result, the accused was compulsorily retired from service. Aggrieved, he filed a departmental appeal, which was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General (P), CRPF. Assailing the order of compulsory retirement and dismissal of his appeal, the accused filed a petition before the Single Judge of the High Court, wherein the Court allowed the petition, inter alia, on the ground that the punishment of compulsory retirement was not one of the punishments specified in Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. Aggrieved, the Union preferred writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, however, the High Court found no merit in the writ appeal and dismissed the same accordingly. Thus, the present appeal had been filed.
Issues and Analysis:
(i) Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement from service could have been imposed upon the accused by relying upon the provisions of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules?
(ii) Whether Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules to the extent it provides for punishments other than those specified in Section 11 of the CRPF Act, ultra vires the CRPF Act and as such inoperable and void?
The Court overviewed of the CRPF Act and the Rules, and noted that the Central Government has overall superintendence and control over the Force and the Force is to be administered by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of the CRPF Act and of any rules made thereunder through such officers as the Central Government may from time to time appoint.
The Court noted that the Central Government is not only empowered to make rules for regulating the award of minor punishment under Section 11 but also to carry out the purposes of the Act which includes superintendence of, and control over, the Force as well as its administration.
Punishment of compulsory retirement is intra vires the CRPF Act
The Court said that ordinarily a person in service cannot be visited with a punishment not specified in the contract of service or the law governing such service. Punishments may be specified either in the contract of service or in the Act or the rules governing such service.
The Court noted that the CRPF Rules provide for imposition of the punishment of compulsory retirement, though the CRPF Act itself does not provide for it in specific terms.
The Court noted that the CRPF Act while dealing with offences and punishments, categorizes offences in two parts. One “more heinous offences” (vide Section 9) and the other “less heinous offences” (vide Section 10).
Examining the scope of rule-making power conferred on the Central Government by the statute, the Court said that since the rule-making power under Section 18 of the CRPF Act is in broad terms, that is to carry out the purposes of the Act as well as to regulate the award of minor punishment under Section 11. To determine whether Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, insofar as it prescribes an additional punishment of compulsory retirement, is intra vires or ultra vires the CRPF Act, it IS important to consider (a) whether the intention of the legislature, as borne out from the provisions of the CRPF Act, was to leave it open for the Central Government to prescribe any other minor punishment than what has already been prescribed in Section 11 of the Act; and (b) whether it is in conflict with any of the provisions of the CRPF Act.
Thus, the Court viewed that while enacting the CRPF Act the legislative intent was not to declare that only those minor punishments could be imposed as are specified in Section 11 of the CRPF Act. Rather, it was left open for the Central Government to frame rules to carry out the purposes of the Act and the punishments imposable were subject to the rules framed under the Act.
Further, the Bench viewed that if the CRPF Act envisages vesting of ‘control’ over the Force in the Central Government and the various punishments imposable under Section 11 are subject to the rules made under the Act, the Central Government in exercise of its general rule-making power, to ensure full and effective control over the Force, can prescribe punishments other than those specified in that section, including the punishment of compulsory retirement.
Therefore, the Court held that to ensure effective control over the Force, if rules are framed, in exercise of general rule-making power, prescribing the punishment of compulsory retirement, the same cannot be said to be ultra vires Section 11 of the CRPF Act, particularly when sub-section (1) of Section 11 clearly mentions that the power exercisable therein is subject to any rules made under the Act. Therefore, the punishment of compulsory retirement prescribed by Rule 27 is intra vires the CRPF Act and is one of the imposable punishments.
(iii) Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the accused suffers from any procedural infirmity and / or is shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct of the accused?
The Court said that there is no palpable error in the conduct of the enquiry. The punishment awarded is also not shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct. Rather, the Court said that considering his past service, already a sympathetic view has been taken in the matter and no further latitude need be shown to the accused who was part of a disciplined force and has been found guilty of assaulting his colleague. Thus, the Court refused to interfere with the punishment awarded to the accused.
Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and affirmed the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to the accused.
[Union of India v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 845, decided on 08-05-2024]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Manoj Misra
Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice Manoj Misra
