9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority and has directed the Appellant(s) to reinstate him in service with notional benefits without any back wages, the Union of India and others have preferred the present appeal. 2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: 2.1. That the Respondent was serving in disciplined force - CRPF. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him and was served with a chargesheet alleging the charges as under: That No. 911120421 CT/GD Sunil Kumar Jat of F/118 CRPF while functioning as CT/GD committed an act of gross misconduct and disobedience of orders in his capacity as a member of the Force Under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he misbehaved, in subordinated wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he extreme penalty of dismissal. Therefore, by observing that the order of penalty of dismissal can be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong, denying the back wages, the High Court has ordered reinstatement of Respondent in service with notional benefits. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is the subject matter of present appeal. 3. Ms. Madhavi Diwan, learned ASG, appearing on behalf of the Union of India and others - Appellant(s) has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Division Bench of the High Court has committed a very serious error in setting aside the order of penalty of dismissal and reinstating the Respondent in service. 3.1. It is v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he misconduct and therefore, the same can be said to be a less heinous offence and therefore, the order of penalty of dismissal is disproportionate, is absolutely misplaced. It is submitted that as such the consideration of heinous offence or less heinous offence would have bearing on order of imprisonment as provided Under Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949. It is submitted that it would not have any bearing on the imposition of penalty of dismissal Under Section 11 in an appropriate case after holding the disciplinary proceedings. Reliance is placed upon the recent decision of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Ram Karan; (2022) 1 SCC 373 (paragraphs 16 to 21 and 30). 3.3. It is further submitted by Ms. Diwan, learned ASG, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality that there can be judicial review Under Articles 226 or 227 or Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 3.5. Making the above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeal. 4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent - delinquent. 4.1. It is submitted that in the present case the offences and misconduct was committed by the Respondent while he was not on active duty. It is submitted that therefore, as per Section 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949, a member of the force ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... influence of intoxication. He also misbehaved and gave threats to the colleagues. The misconduct committed by the Respondent is of insubordination also. The misconduct of misbehaving with the superior/senior officer and of insubordination can be said to be a very serious misconduct and cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force like CRPF and therefore, as such the Division Bench of the High Court is not justified in observing that on the proved charges and misconduct penalty of dismissal can be said to be disproportionate. 6.1. While holding that the penalty of dismissal can be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong, what is weighed with the Division Bench of the High Court is that as the Respondent was found to be in a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and held by this Court after considering the earlier decision in the case of Union of India v. R.K. Sharma; (2001) 9 SCC 592 that in exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate. As observed and held that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review Under Article 226 or 227 or Under Article 32 of the Constitution. 6.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision(s) to the facts of the case on hand, it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal can be said to be stri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
