In Brief
A CRPF officer was dismissed after a departmental inquiry found him guilty of serious misconduct, including misbehaving with superiors, threatening officers with dire consequences, and insubordination while intoxicated. The High Court had set aside the dismissal as disproportionate, reasoning that intoxication off-duty amounted to a 'less heinous' offence. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that the distinction between 'heinous' and 'less heinous' offences under the CRPF Act applies only to criminal punishment, not departmental discipline. Since insubordination and threats to superiors in a disciplined force are grave misconduct, dismissal is justified and can only be interfered with if 'strikingly disproportionate'. The Court quashed the High Court order and restored the dismissal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.