Supreme Court Upholds Centre's Rule Prescribing 'Compulsory Retirement' As Punishment For CRPF Personnel

The Supreme Court in a recent judgement held that 'compulsory retirement' under the Rules of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was validly within the purpose of maintaining 'disciplinary control' over the force under the CRPF Act 1949.The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held that the provision of minor punishment under S. 11 of the CRPF Act was non-exhaustive in nature and that it granted the Central Government the liberty to prescribe through rules compulsory retirement as a punishment. The court also analysed the essence of the term 'control' used under S.8 of the CRPF Act which was observed to include 'disciplinary control' conferred upon the Centre over the force as one of the purposes of the Act. “It is clear that 'control' is a word of wide amplitude and includes disciplinary control. Therefore, in our view, if the CRPF Act envisages vesting of control over the Force in the Central Government and the various punishments imposable under Section 11 are subject to the rules made under the Act, the Central Government in exercise of its general rule-making power, to ensure full and effective control over the Force, can prescribe punishments other than those specified in that section, including the punishment of compulsory retirement.” The facts of the case pertain to the punishment of compulsory retirement granted to the respondent who was a head constable in the CRPF on the allegations of assaulting his colleague. Upon an enquiry, the authorities compulsorily retired him on 16.2.2006. Aggrieved by the same the respondent filed a department appeal which was dismissed on 28.7.2006The said order of punishment and dismissal of appeal was then challenged in writ petition before the High Court of Orissa. The single-judge bench allowed the writ appeal on the grounds that S. 11(1) of the CRPF Act did not provide for 'compulsory retirement' as a form of punishment. The Union's challenge to the order before the division bench in appeal failed on the same line of reasoning given by the initial court. The Union then approached the Supreme Court by way of a civil appeal challenging the said orders of the High Court. The main question of law posed to the bench was whether Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules ultra vires the CRPF Act to the extent that it provides for punishments other than those specified in S.11 of the Act and is therefore null and void. Arguments Raised By The Parties Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Ms Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the Union. She contended the following key points : (1) The respondent's argument that forcing someone into retirement isn't a valid punishment because of its absence under Section 11 of the CRPF Act. However, this argument was based on a misunderstanding of the law; (2) The High Court overlooked that Section 11 of the CRPF Act must be followed according to any additional rules that the Central Government decides under the same Act; (3) Section 18 gives the Central Government the authority to create these rules to help enforce the Act's purposes. Specifically, the rules may include details about the types of punishments that can be given, as mentioned in Section 11; (4) Rule 27 mentions that forcing an officer (who is not a high-ranking or gazetted officer) into retirement can be used as one of these punishments. The High Court's decision overlooked these relevant sections and rules of the CRPF Act; (5) Section 11 broadly defines 'removal' as any penalty that ends someone's employment. This includes compulsory retirement. Thus, under the CRPF Rules, forced retirement is considered a form of removal and is allowed. The ASG relied upon the decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat which held that removal is a form of dismissal from service and both bring about the termination of service. On the other hand, Mr Anand Shankar appearing for the respondent argued that (1) punishment of compulsory retirement as specified in Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules is ultra vires the provisions of Section 11 of the CRPF Act, which is exhaustive, and no punishment beyond what is specified therein can be imposed; (2) Rule 27 was created by the Central Government using authority given to them by a specific part of the CRPF Act. This part of the law only allows the government to set rules for lesser penalties, not to create new types of punishments; (3) Dismissal and compulsory retirement are two different kinds of punishment and cannot be treated as interchangeable; (4) Decision in Ghulam Bhat is misplaced as it doesn't consider the issue of compulsory retirement as a form dismissal; (5) the respondent is not proven guilty since there was no eye witness. The person who claimed they were attacked (Mr Hawald M. Devnath) didn't like the accused and likely made a false claim. Both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority didn't carefully review the case on facts. S.11 Of The CRPF Act Is A Non-Exhaustive Provision For Imposing 'Minor...

Supreme Court Upholds Centre's Rule Prescribing 'Compulsory Retirement' As Punishment For CRPF Personnel

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags