Punishment of compulsory retirement prescribed under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules is intra vires: Supreme Court

While hearing the Union of India & Ors. vs. Santosh Kumar Tiwari case on May 08, 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) of India held that the punishment of compulsory retirement prescribed under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (CRPF Rules) is intra vires. The three-judge bench constituting Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Manoj Misra, and Justice JB Pardiwala was hearing an appeal against the Orissa High Court judgment by which the writ appeal preferred by the appellants (Union of India) against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed. While hearing the case, the SC highlighted three issues for consideration, 

• “Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement from service could have been imposed upon the respondent by relying upon the provisions of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules? 
• Whether Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules to the extent it provides for punishments other than those specified in Section 11 of the CRPF Act, ultra vires the CRPF Act and as such inoperable and void?
• Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the respondent suffers from any procedural infirmity and/or is shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct of the respondent?”

In this case, the respondent was a Head Constable in Central Reserve Police Force. He was charge-sheeted on allegations of assaulting and abusing his fellow colleague. In the ensuing inquiry, the charges were found proved against the respondent. As a result thereof, the respondent was compulsorily retired from service vide order. Aggrieved by this, the respondent filed a departmental appeal, which was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General (P), CRPF. Assailing the order of compulsory retirement and dismissal of his appeal, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before a Single Judge Bench of the HC. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that the punishment of compulsory retirement was not one of the punishments specified in Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. Further, the Division Bench of the HC heard the matter and found no merit in the writ appeal; therefore, it dismissed the same accordingly. The matter was then mentioned before the Supreme Court.

During the proceedings, the SC observed that “It cannot be gainsaid that compulsory retirement is a well-accepted method of removing dead wood from the cadre without affecting his entitlement for retirement benefits, if otherwise payable. It is another form of terminating the service without affecting retirement benefits. 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.” It added, “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.” The SC further pointed out that “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.” 

The SC bench, therefore, held that the punishment of compulsory retirement prescribed by Rule 27 is intra vires the CRPF Act and is one of the punishments imposable. In context with the present case, the top court noted that the punishment awarded was not shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct. It added, “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. Consequently, we find no good reason to interfere with the punishment awarded to the respondent.” The SC set aside the HC's impugned order, dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, and affirmed the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to the respondent (Santosh Kumar Tiwari).