9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rules 7 and 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 regarding the authority for dismissal. 2. Validity of the order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) without prior approval of the Inspector General of Police (IG). 3. Proportionality of the punishment of dismissal in relation to the allegations made against the deceased employee. 4. Availability of pensionary benefits to the family of the deceased employee. 5. Consideration of past service records and disciplinary proceedings in determining the appropriateness of the dismissal. Analysis: 1. The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Rules 7 and 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. Rule 7 specifies that the Commandant is the appointing authority for non-gazetted ranks, with prior approval of the DIG or IG for certain appointments. Rule 27 outlines the procedure for awarding punishment, including dismissal. The Court clarified that the requirement of approval by the IG for appointment or promotion does not make the IG the appointing authority. The DIG, being of higher rank than the Commandant, had the authority to pass the order of dismissal. The judgment cited a previous case to support this interpretation, emphasizing that the appointing authority remains the Commandant despite the need for approval by higher-ranking officials. 2. The validity of the order of dismissal by the DIG without prior approval of the IG was challenged. The appellant argued that the punishment was disproportionate, considering the deceased employee's unblemished service record and the nature of the allegations. The Additional Solicitor General contended that the disciplinary authorities had appropriately considered the evidence and determined that dismissal was warranted. The Court upheld the order of dismissal, emphasizing that the Division Bench's interpretation was legally sound and did not require interference. 3. The proportionality of the punishment of dismissal in relation to the allegations against the deceased employee was a key issue. The appellant argued that the punishment was excessive given the employee's service record and the nature of the charges. However, the Court found no grounds for interference, as the punishment was deemed appropriate based on the proved charges and the disciplinary proceedings. 4. The availability of pensionary benefits to the family of the deceased employee was raised as a concern. The Court noted that the dismissal would impact the entitlement to such benefits. However, the primary focus of the judgment was on the legality and proportionality of the dismissal, rather than the specific implications for pensionary benefits. 5. In considering the appropriateness of the dismissal, the Court highlighted the deceased employee's past service records and the lack of full records of the disciplinary proceedings. While acknowledging the absence of complete records, the Court ordered an ex-gratia payment to the appellant as a measure to serve the interest of justice, given the unique circumstances of the case.
|
