Disproportionate: Rajasthan HC Quashes CRPF Constable's Dismissal For Entering Fellow Constable's Home When Only His Wife Was Present

Nupur Agrawal

27 Feb 2025 12:15 PM IST

  • Disproportionate: Rajasthan HC Quashes CRPF Constables Dismissal For Entering Fellow Constables Home When Only His Wife Was Present

    The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside termination of services of a CRPF constable who was found guilty of entering into the quarters of a fellow constable in the presence of only the latter's wife and young child, and trying to flee when he was asked to come out, on the ground that the imposed punishment was disproportionate.The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that...

    The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside termination of services of a CRPF constable who was found guilty of entering into the quarters of a fellow constable in the presence of only the latter's wife and young child, and trying to flee when he was asked to come out, on the ground that the imposed punishment was disproportionate.

    The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that when the punishment was disproportionate, the Court could interfere under its limited scope of judicial review. It was opined that there had to be fairness in all administrative decisions, especially in imposing punishments that not only impacted the employee but also their family members by depriving the employee of their livelihood.

    “This Court, as stated above, has to take into consideration the interests of both the employee and the employer while administering justice without being unduly influenced by any sympathetic considerations…Although allegations have been levelled against the petitioner that he overstayed after expiry of the sanctioned leave period, but no charge was framed in this regard while serving charge-sheet upon the petitioner. In the absence of serving any charge-sheet to this effect and without affording any due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondents were not justified in treating the above act of the petitioner as misconduct....It is true that discipline is the hallmark of the disciplined forces and its members are not expected to violate the discipline by entering into the residence of fellow members and disobey the command of the higher officers, but the act of the petitioner is not such which warrants his dismissal from service. Such a heavy punishment of "dismissal” from service" for the above act or conduct of the petitioner is disproportionate.”

    The petition was filed by a CRPF constable who was dismissed from service after being found guilty of entering into the residential quarter of a fellow constable and trying to flee when he was called out by other CRPF official on duty.

    It was submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioner, being a member of the disciplined force was expected to adhere to discipline which he failed to do and hence, the Disciplinary Authority decided to terminate his services.

    After hearing the contentions, the Court observed that even though the scope of interference with the decision of the disciplinary authority was very limited, High Courts had the power to grant relief where the punishment shook the judicial conscience. The Court further highlighted,

    “Their Lordships of the Supreme Court also recognised the theory of proportionality of punishment when they said that "an order imposing punishment, which is shockingly disproportionate or is highly excessive having regard to the gravity of misconduct, is liable to be declared as arbitrary and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India… Supreme Court has held that interference with the quantum of penalty, should only be justified in compelling and strong circumstances which must be explicitly recorded and such interference cannot be based on misplaced sympathy or generosity.”

    In this background, the Court held that in the present case, the interference was not based on misplaced sympathy or generosity but based on rendering equitable justice which was the hallmark of judicial review. It was opined that the Court had to take into account the interests of both the employer and the employee.

    In light of the doctrine of proportionality, the punishment of termination of service was found to be disproportionate for the petitioner. Allow the plea in part, the court directed the matter to be remitted to the appropriate authority for reconsideration on the question of punishment and for passing appropriate orders within a period of three months.

    Case Title: R. Magadaiah v I.G. CRPF & Anr.

    Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 78

    Click Here To Read/Download Order

    Next Story