UNION OF INDIA & ORS vs SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI

Bench: 3 — D. Y. Chandrachud, J. B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra

In Brief

A Head Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force was compulsorily retired for assaulting a colleague. He challenged the punishment, arguing that compulsory retirement was not listed in Section 11 of the CRPF Act, so the punishment was invalid. The High Court initially agreed and set the order aside. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that Section 11 is not exhaustive. The phrase "subject to rules made under the Act" in Section 11 empowers the Central Government to prescribe additional punishments through rules. Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules validly prescribes compulsory retirement as a punishment, enabling effective disciplinary control. The Court affirmed the punishment as proportionate to the proven misconduct.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Administrative Law Disciplinary Procedure Service Law Rule-Making Power Central Reserve Police Force Statutory Interpretation Delegation of Legislative Power Subordinate Legislation Personnel Management

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.