In Brief
A CRPF constable was dismissed after departmental inquiry for misbehaving, abusing, and injuring a doctor while on duty, and for subsequently making false sexual harassment allegations against the doctor. The High Court upheld the charges but substituted the removal penalty with confinement in quarter-guard jail, deeming removal disproportionate to the proved misconduct. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that the High Court exceeded its limited judicial review jurisdiction. Under the CRPF Act, 1949, removal from service is a minor punishment that the competent disciplinary authority may lawfully impose. Courts cannot substitute their discretion for the disciplinary authority's regarding quantum of punishment except in rare cases where penalty is shockingly disproportionate. The scheme of the CRPF Act differs from civil service rules and standards applicable to civil servants cannot be transposed to disciplined force members.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.