Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ramesh Mahadu Wankhede, was appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in 1990. In 2007, he was involved in an incident where his hand touched the face of a co-employee who had complained against him, for which he was punished with 7 days confinement and forfeiture of pay. Subsequently, on 08.03.2008, he was issued a memorandum charging him with slapping Mr. Harjaya and tampering a movement certificate. After an inquiry, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service on 11.10.2008 under Section 12(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, also forfeiting all medals and decorations. The petitioner's appeal to the Deputy Inspector General was dismissed in January 2009, and his revision to the Inspector General was dismissed on 31.05.2009. Aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition. The petitioner argued that the punishment was disproportionate, arbitrary, and illegal, noting his 17 years of unblemished service and the minor nature of the charges. The respondents defended the punishment as commensurate with the misconduct. The court, applying the principle of proportionality, found that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the charges. It noted that the disciplinary authority had not considered the petitioner's long service record or the fact that the charges were not grave. The court set aside the dismissal order and the appellate/revisional orders, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, but without back wages for the period of absence. The court clarified that the respondents could consider imposing a lesser punishment, such as reduction in rank or withholding of increments, if deemed appropriate.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Judicial Review - Proportionality - The court examined whether the punishment of dismissal under Section 12(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 was proportionate to the misconduct of slapping a co-employee and tampering a movement certificate - Held that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate and the disciplinary authority failed to consider the petitioner's long service of 17 years and the minor nature of the charges - The court set aside the dismissal and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner for charges of slapping a co-employee and tampering a movement certificate is disproportionate to the misconduct.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of dismissal dated 11.10.2008 and the appellate/revisional orders, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, but without back wages for the period of absence. The respondents may consider imposing a lesser punishment if deemed appropriate.
Law Points
- Disproportionate punishment
- judicial review of disciplinary proceedings
- principle of proportionality
- Section 12(1) Central Reserve Police Force Act
- 1949
