9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 regarding the authority for dismissal, proportionality of punishment in disciplinary proceedings, and consideration of service records in determining ex-gratia payment. Interpretation of Central Reserve Police Force Rules: The judgment involves the interpretation of Rules 7(b) and 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 to determine the authority for dismissal. The Court clarified that while approval of the Inspector General (IG) is necessary for appointment or promotion, it does not make the IG the appointing authority. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) is authorized to dismiss or remove a Subedar (Inspector) under Rule 27, as the Commandant is the appointing authority. The Court cited precedent to support the distinction between recommending/approving authority and appointing authority, emphasizing that the appointing authority remains the Commandant despite the requirement for IG's approval. Proportionality of Punishment in Disciplinary Proceedings: The judgment addresses the issue of proportionality of punishment in disciplinary proceedings. The appellant argued that the dismissal was disproportionate considering the deceased employee's unblemished service record and the nature of the allegations. The Court noted that the Division Bench did not consider the aspect of proportionality, emphasizing that punishment should not be disproportionate to the proved charges. The Court highlighted that in exceptional cases where punishment is not disproportionate, there is no scope for interference. The judgment underscores the importance of considering past service records and the gravity of charges in determining the proportionality of punishment. Consideration of Service Records for Ex-Gratia Payment: The judgment also touches upon the consideration of service records in determining ex-gratia payment. Due to the unavailability of full records of the disciplinary proceedings, the Court ordered the respondents to pay an ex-gratia amount to the appellant as a measure of justice. The Court emphasized that the interest of justice would be best served by the payment of &8377; 2.5 lacs within two months. This decision was based on the peculiar facts of the case and the lack of complete records to conclusively determine the appropriateness of the dismissal. In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the interpretation of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, the proportionality of punishment in disciplinary proceedings, and the consideration of service records for ex-gratia payment. The Court's decision clarifies the authority for dismissal under the Rules, emphasizes the importance of proportionate punishment, and highlights the need for fair consideration of service records in determining compensatory measures.
|
