Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement Prescribed By Rule 27 Of CRPF Rules Is Intra Vires The CRPF Act: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court upheld Rule 27 of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (CRPF Rules) that prescribes punishment of compulsory retirement.
The Court was dealing with a civil appeal filed by the Centre against the judgment of the Orissa High Court by which an appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge was dismissed.
The three-Judge Bench comprising CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra held, “Ordinarily, compulsory retirement is not considered a punishment. But if the service rules permit it to be imposed by way of a punishment, subject to an enquiry, so be it. To keep the Force efficient, weeding out undesirable elements therefrom is essential and is a facet of control over the Force, which the Central Government has over the Force by virtue of Section 8 of the CRPF Act. Thus, 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. We, therefore, hold that the punishment of compulsory retirement prescribed by Rule 27 is intra vires the CRPF Act and is one of the punishments imposable.”
The Bench said that the compulsory retirement is a well-accepted method of removing dead wood from the cadre without affecting his entitlement for retirement benefits, if otherwise payable. It is another form of terminating the service without affecting retirement benefits.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati represented the appellants while Advocate Anand Shankar represented the respondent.
In this case, the respondent was a Head Constable in CRPF and was charge-sheeted on allegations of assaulting and abusing his fellow colleague. In the ensuing enquiry, the charges were found proved against the respondent and as a result thereof, he was compulsorily retired from service vide an order in 2006. Aggrieved therewith, 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 respondent filed a Writ Petition before a Single Judge Bench of the High Court.
The Single Judge allowed the same on the ground that the punishment of compulsory retirement was not one of the punishments specified in Section 11 (1) of the CRPF, 1949. Being aggrieved, the order of the Single Judge was preferred by the appellants vide an appeal before the Division Bench. The Bench found no merit in the same and dismissed it. Therefore, the appellants approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case noted, “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 question which would therefore arise for our consideration is whether Section 11 is exhaustive as far as minor punishments imposable under the CRPF Act are concerned or it merely provides for a skeletal framework to be supplemented by the rules framed under the Act.”
The Court observed that while enacting the CRPF Act, 1949 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.
“… 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”, it held.
Furthermore, the Court said that the punishment awarded is not shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct, rather, considering his past service, already a sympathetic view has been taken in the matter and no further latitude need be shown to the respondent who was part of a disciplined force and has been found guilty of assaulting his colleague.
“Consequently, we find no good reason to interfere with the punishment awarded to the respondent”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and affirmed the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to the respondent.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 392)
