| Citation | (2022) 7 SCC 675 |
| Date of Judgment | 1st June 2022 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Civil Appeal No. 4410 of 2012 |
| Appellant | Union of India |
| Respondent | Suresh Kumar Singh |
| Bench | B.R. Gavai and Hima Kohli, JJ |
| Referred | Section- 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 |
FACTS OF THE CASE
Suresh Kumar Singh (Respondent) was a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). In 1999, he was transferred from his current posting to another location. The Respondent was unhappy with the transfer, and he allegedly made a telephone call to the then Additional DIGP, Mokamaghat, impersonating himself as a Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha, in order to get the transfer order canceled.
The CRPF initiated departmental proceedings against the Respondent, and he was found guilty of misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. He was awarded the punishment of removal from service. The Respondent challenged the punishment before the Appellate Authority, which modified the punishment to 28 days confinement to Quarter Guard with forfeiture of pay and allowances.
The Respondent then challenged the punishment before the High Court of Patna, which allowed his writ petition and set aside the punishment. The High Court held that the departmental proceedings had been conducted in an unfair manner and that the punishment of removal from service was excessive.
ISSUES
- Whether the departmental proceedings against Singh had been conducted in an unfair manner.
- Whether the punishment of removal from service was excessive.
ARGUMENTS
Appellants-
The counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants argued that the learned Single Judge of the High Court, as well as the Division Bench, were not justified in interfering with the departmental proceedings and specifically in the penalty as imposed. They relied on the judgement, State of Rajasthan vs. Sujata Malhotra.
Respondents-
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the views taken by the learned single judge of the High Court as well as the Division Bench are in accordance with law and no interference was warranted.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the departmental proceedings had been conducted in an unfair manner, and that the punishment of removal from service was excessive. The Supreme Court set aside the punishment, and directed that Singh be reinstated to service with full back wages.
The case of Union of India v Suresh Kumar Singh is an important case in the area of disciplinary proceedings against government employees. The case sets out the principles that must be followed in order for disciplinary proceedings to be fair. The case also emphasizes the importance of proportionality in the imposition of disciplinary punishments.
The case is also significant because it highlights the role of the High Court in reviewing disciplinary proceedings. The High Court has the power to quash disciplinary punishments that have been imposed in an unfair manner, or that are disproportionate to the offence committed.
CONCLUSION
The case of Union of India v Suresh Kumar Singh is an important case that has set important precedents in the area of disciplinary proceedings against government employees. The case emphasizes the importance of fairness and proportionality in disciplinary proceedings, and it underscores the role of the High Court in reviewing disciplinary punishments.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Bejita Banerjee of Birla Global University, an Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments