CRPF | Heavy & Onerous Responsibility On Disciplinary Authority To Ensure Punishment Proportionate To Misconduct: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Emphasising the vital role of the Disciplinary Authority in ensuring that punishments imposed on delinquent officials are proportionate to their misconduct, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the dismissal order of a paramilitary personnel.“The heavy and onerous responsibility lies with the Disciplinary Authority to ensure that the punishment proportionate to...
Emphasising the vital role of the Disciplinary Authority in ensuring that punishments imposed on delinquent officials are proportionate to their misconduct, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the dismissal order of a paramilitary personnel.
“The heavy and onerous responsibility lies with the Disciplinary Authority to ensure that the punishment proportionate to the misconduct of the delinquent official is imposed upon him. The punishment must commensurate with the misconduct and it should neither be harsh nor light in nature…Once such heavy duty has been cast upon the Disciplinary Authority and the quantum of punishment has been kept away from the consideration of the Courts unless it shocks the conscience of the Court, such duty must be discharged by the disciplinary authority very fairly and in a transparent manner”, Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed.
The petitioner, a former L/Naik in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), was dismissed from service by respondents in 1999 for overstaying leave without sufficient cause. The petitioner appealed against this decision, but the same was also dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition challenging all the orders and sought reinstatement with back wages/salary.
The petitioner contended that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, which fell under section 10 (m) of the CRPF Act, a less heinous offence.
The Court rejected this contention and held that the Act allows for the award of dismissal even for less heinous offences.
Significantly, in its order recording subjective satisfaction, the respondent authority made reference in respect of petitioner overstaying leave eight times earlier.
Consequently, the court quashed the dismissal order and directed respondent No. 4 to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law within one month. The court also noted that due to the petitioner's age of superannuation, reinstatement into service was not possible, and any entitlement to service benefits would be subject to the new decision of respondent No. 4.
Case Title: Yoginder Singh Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 203
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment