'Revision Power Can't Be Exercised Suo Motu': Calcutta HC Reinstates SSB Constable Dismissed After Punishment Was Reopened
The Calcutta High Court has reinstated a Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) constable whose services were terminated after authorities revisited and enhanced a punishment earlier imposed for suppression of a pending criminal case at the time of recruitment.
Justice Aniruddha Roy held that the authorities had acted without jurisdiction in invoking Rule 29(d) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 to annul an earlier punishment and subsequently terminate the constable's services. The Court ruled that the revisional power under Rule 29 can be exercised only when a revision petition is filed by a member of the force whose appeal has been rejected.
"On a meaningful and harmonious reading of entire Rule 29, this Court finds that only in the event a revision is preferred by a member of the force under sub-Rule (a) then the power under sub-Rule (d) could be exercised. Sub-Rule (d) to Rule 29 is neither an independent provision nor can be exercised de hors sub-Rule (a) to Rule 29," the Court observed.
Background
The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar Pandey, was appointed as a Constable (General Duty) in the SSB in 2006. During service verification, it emerged that he had not disclosed a pending criminal case while filling up the verification roll at the time of appointment.
A departmental inquiry was conducted and, in 2013, the disciplinary authority found the charge proved. Taking a lenient view, it imposed a minor penalty of seven days' pay fine, observing that the petitioner was young and may have omitted the information out of fear or inadvertence.
However, in 2017, SSB headquarters opined that the punishment was disproportionately lenient and that appointments obtained by suppressing criminal antecedents were void ab initio. Acting on this view, the Deputy Inspector General invoked Rule 29(d) of the CRPF Rules, annulled the earlier punishment and eventually terminated the petitioner's services in October 2019. The termination was upheld in departmental appeals.
Challenging these actions, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Court's Findings
The principal issue before the Court was whether the authorities could invoke Rule 29(d) of the CRPF Rules on their own to reopen and enhance a punishment previously imposed.
After examining Rule 29, Justice Roy held that sub-rule (a) creates the substantive right of revision and permits exercise of revisional jurisdiction only when a member of the force files a revision petition after rejection of an appeal.
The Court rejected the Union's argument that Rule 29(d) confers an independent suo motu revisional power.
"Right to prefer revision is an exclusive right vested with the member of the force only... Therefore, in absence of any revision having been preferred by the petitioner, in the instant case, there was no scope for exercising revisional power by the Superior Authority," the Court held.
Declaring the annulment and termination orders without jurisdiction, the Court said that equitable doctrines such as waiver, acquiescence or estoppel cannot validate an action that is fundamentally illegal.
"When an action is bad on the face of it being dehors the law and wholly without jurisdiction, all those principles of equity, namely, acquiescence, waiver or estoppel would not operate against the law," the judgment stated.
The Court further emphasised its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to mould relief and correct patently illegal administrative actions affecting a citizen's right to livelihood.
Directing restoration of service benefits, the Court held that the petitioner would be treated as continuing in valid service after the minor punishment imposed in 2013.
"The petitioner shall be treated as in valid employment since after the previous punishment dated March 5, 2013, as if there has been no termination of service of the petitioner. His service shall be treated as a continuous one," the Court ordered.
Case: Mukesh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: WPA 340 of 2021