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

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 28.7.2006

The 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 Punishments'; Grants Liberty To Centre To Frame Rules To Fulfill The Purpose Of The Act

At the outset, the court noted the distinction of punishments prescribed under the CRPF Act. Notably, Section 9 provides for “more heinous offences” , Section 10 provides for “less heinous offences” and minor punishments are set out under Section 11 of the CRPF Act.

The Court analysed that Section 11 provides that lesser punishments can either be replaced or be added to more severe consequences like suspension or dismissal. Secondly, the authorised persons who can prescribe such a punishment can do so only following the established rules of the CRPF Act. Thirdly, Section 11 avoids typical terms like "dismissal from service" or "removal from service" when describing these punishments. However, Rule 27 in question does use such expressions.

The bench noted that S.11 while mentioning punishments like suspension or dismissal adds a condition that these punishments shall follow the rules set out by the Act. However, when discussing penalties for very serious offences and less serious offences in Sections 9 and 10, this condition isn't mentioned. The term "subject to" used in S.11 means that whatever is being discussed will have to be considered and possibly changed according to other applicable rules from this Act.

Section 11 expressly uses the phrase “subject to any rules made under this Act” before “award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more of the following punishments”. Importantly, while prescribing punishment for “more heinous offences” and “less heinous offences” in Sections 9 and 10 respectively, the phrase “subject to any rules made under this Act” is not used. The expression “subject to” conveys the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions subject to which it is made.

Relying upon the jurisprudence as proposed by G.P. Singh in his treatise “Principles of Statutory Interpretation” (13th Edition), the court held that the ambit of S.11 was rather non-exhaustive and the Centre was given the liberty to frame rules to execute the purposes of the CRPF legislation and the punishments imposable were, therefore, subject to such rules framed under the Act.

“ We are of the view that while enacting the CRPF Act the legislative intent was not to declare that only those minor punishments could be imposed as are specified in Section 11 of the CRPF Act. Rather, it was left open for the Central Government to frame rules to carry out the purposes of the Act and the punishments imposable were subject to the rules framed under the Act.”

The Court placed reliance upon the following passage to construe that the CRPF Act enables the Centre to make rules which may have the power to override any restrictions in the Act's provisions.

“The delegate cannot override the Act either by exceeding the authority or by making provisions inconsistent with the Act. But when the enabling Act itself permits its modification by rules, the rules made prevail over the provision in the Act. When provision A in the Act is subject to other provisions of the Act, a valid notification issued under any other provision in the Act would in case of conflict with section A override its provisions.”

Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement Within The Rule Making Powers Of The Centre To Ensure Disciplinary Control

On dealing with the aspect of whether imposing 'compulsory retirement' as a punishment by way of Rule 27 forms part of the larger purpose of the CRPF Act, the Court turned to understand the term 'control' as under S. 8 of the Act.

As per S. 8, the superintendence and control over the Force is vested with the Central Government as one of the purposes of the Act. The Court further dwelled into the concept of control from the point of view of the CRPF legislation and held that 'control' would also imply 'disciplinary control' of the Centre over the CRPF Force.

In doing so, the Court relied upon its decisions in State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi which held that the word 'control' must include disciplinary jurisdiction; and also the observations in Madan Mohan Choudhary v. State of Bihar & Ors. which stated that the term 'control' as under Article 235 of the Constitution included disciplinary control.

“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 bench also observed that normally compulsory retirement isn't considered a form of punishment, but if the rules allow it and a proper inquiry is conducted for the same, then it can be justified. The court noted that such a step may be important for the government to ensure that only suitable and disciplined people form part of the force to maintain its efficacy. According to Section 8 of the CRPF Act, the Central Government has the authority to manage the Force, and this includes removing unsuitable members.

Furthermore, if the government makes rules that identify forced retirement as a punishment, these rules are valid. This doesn't conflict with Section 11 of the CRPF Act. Section 11 states that any actions it describes must follow the established rules of the Act.

“Ordinarily, compulsory retirement is not considered a punishment. But if the service rules permit it to be imposed by way of a punishment, subject to an enquiry, so be it. To keep the Force efficient, weeding out undesirable elements therefrom is essential and is a facet of control over the Force, which the Central Government has over the Force by virtue of Section 8 of the CRPF Act. Thus, to ensure effective control over the Force, if rules are framed, in exercise of general rule-making power, prescribing the punishment of compulsory retirement, the same cannot be said to be ultra vires Section 11 of the CRPF Act, particularly when sub-section (1) of Section 11 clearly mentions that the power exercisable therein is subject to any rules made under the Act. We, therefore, hold that the punishment of compulsory retirement prescribed by Rule 27 is intra vires the CRPF Act and is one of the punishments imposable.”

Upholding the vires of Rule 27 of imposing compulsory retirement as a valid punishment under the CRPF Act, the Court upheld the punishment given to the respondent and thus set aside the High Court's impugned order.

In terms of the facts the Court noted that a propery inquiry was conducted as per the rules and there appeared no perversity in the inquiry report. Perhaps the authorities had taken a sympathetic view of giving him compulsory retirement as opposed to other harsher punishments.

“Further, no palpable error in the conduct of the enquiry was brought to our notice. The punishment awarded is also not shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct. Rather, considering his past service, already a sympathetic view has been taken in the matter and no further latitude need be shown to the respondent who was part of a disciplined force and has been found guilty of assaulting his colleague.”

Case Details : UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI CIVIL APPEAL NO.6135 OF 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 366