9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to the punishment of dismissal from service as disproportionate based on the conviction for a less heinous offence under Section 10(n) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.
The respondent, a Constable in the CRPF, was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court for leaving his duty, consuming illicit alcohol, and misbehaving with a superior officer. The Assistant Commandant found him guilty and dismissed him from service. The respondent challenged this in the High Court, which directed a reconsideration of the punishment due to its perceived disproportionality. The appellants argued that the dismissal was justified under Section 12(1) of the Act, as the respondent's actions constituted grave charges of indiscipline. They contended that the High Court erred in finding the punishment disproportionate. The respondent's counsel cited precedents to support the argument that dismissal for a less heinous offence and a one-day imprisonment was unwarranted. They emphasized the need for substantial justice and reconsideration of penalties in such cases. The Supreme Court analyzed Sections 10(n) and 12(1) of the Act, highlighting the authority's discretion in dismissing a member sentenced to imprisonment. The Court noted the seriousness of the respondent's indiscipline, justifying the dismissal as a consequence of his actions. The Court criticized the High Court's intervention, stating that the punishment was not strikingly disproportionate to warrant interference. Citing legal precedents, the Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in such matters. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and upholding the dismissal of the respondent from service.
|
