Punishment Imposed By Disciplinary Authority Can Be Interfered With Only If It Is 'Strikingly Disproportionate' : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that, in excercise of the power of judicial review, the punishment imposed by disciplinary proceedings can be interfered with only if it is 'strikingly disproportionate'.

Even in a case where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed and proved the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment/penalty which as such is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority, the bench of Justices M R Shah and C T Ravikumar said.

In this case, CRPF Constable Sunil Kumar was dismissed from service following a disciplinary proceedings. The Rajasthan High Court, while allowing his writ petition, held that the order of penalty of dismissal can be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the wrong. Thus the High Court ordered reinstatement of respondent in service with notional benefits.

In appeal, the court noted that the charges and misconduct proved against the Constable is of misbehaving with superior and giving threats of dire consequences to the superior, under the influence of intoxication. 

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..Whether a member of the force has committed a heinous offence or a less heinous offence as per Sections 9 and 10 of the CRPF Act, 1949 would have bearing on inflicting the punishment as provided under Sections 9 and 10 but has no relevance on the disciplinary proceedings/departmental enquiry for the act of indiscipline and/or insubordination..", the court noted.

While restoring the order of termination from service, the court observed thus;

" 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.... 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.

Case details

Union of India vs Const Sunil Kumar | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 49 | CA 219 OF 2023 | 19 Jan 2023 | Justices M R Shah and C T Ravikumar

For Appellant(s) Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhishek Gupta, AOR Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Adv.

Headnotes

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Articles 32, 226, 227- Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - 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 - Only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review - Even in a case where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed and proved the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment/penalty which as such is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. (Para 6-7)

Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 ; Section 9,10  - 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 - Whether a member of the force has committed a heinous offence or a less heinous offence as per Sections 9 and 10  would have bearing on inflicting the punishment as provided under Sections 9 and 10 but has no relevance on the disciplinary proceedings/departmental enquiry for the act of indiscipline and/or insubordination. (Para 6)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment