UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus EX. CONSTABLE RAM KARAN

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus EX. CONSTABLE RAM KARAN

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in substituting the penalty imposed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities; Section 11 and Rule 27 empower competent authorities to inflict removal or other minor punishments in disciplinary proceedings of CRPF members, and courts have only limited scope to interfere with quantum of punishment except where it is shockingly disproportionate; accordingly the High Court's substitution of punishment was set aside and the appeal allowed.

Parties
Appellant: Union of India & Ors.; Respondent: Ex. Constable Ram Karan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From High Court Judgment (judgment on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment quashed and set aside.
Legal Topics
Departmental Inquiry, Quantum of Punishment, Judicial Review of Disciplinary Action, Disciplinary Proceedings Under CRPF Act and Rules, Removal Vs. Dismissal
Service Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Departmental Inquiry Quantum of Punishment Judicial Review of Disciplinary Action Disciplinary Proceedings Under CRPF Act and Rules Removal Vs. Dismissal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Union of India & Ors.

Appellant

Ex. Constable Ram Karan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From High Court Judgment (judgment on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court could substitute the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority
  2. 2 Scope of judicial review in relation to quantum of punishment in departmental proceedings
  3. 3 Applicability and scope of Section 11 of the Central Reserve Force Police Act, 1949 and Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in substituting the penalty imposed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities; Section 11 and Rule 27 empower competent authorities to inflict removal or other minor punishments in disciplinary proceedings of CRPF members, and courts have only limited scope to interfere with quantum of punishment except where it is shockingly disproportionate; accordingly the High Court's substitution of punishment was set aside and the appeal allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment quashed and set aside.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 11.02.2016 quashed and set aside
  • No costs