Rajasthan High Court Quashes CRPF Constable's Dismissal for Disproportionate Punishment

In a significant judgment, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court overturned the dismissal of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable, ruling that the punishment was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The constable had been terminated from service after being found guilty of entering a fellow constable's residential quarters in the presence of the latter's wife and young child and attempting to flee when confronted.

The case arose when the petitioner, a CRPF constable, was accused of unauthorized entry into a colleague's residence. According to the allegations, he entered the quarters while only the colleague's wife and young child were present. Upon being discovered and asked to come out, he allegedly tried to escape, leading to charges of misconduct and subsequent dismissal from service.

Challenging the dismissal, the petitioner contended that the punishment was excessively harsh and not commensurate with the nature of the misconduct. He argued that while discipline is paramount in armed forces, the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate, especially considering the circumstances of the incident.

The State, defending the disciplinary action, maintained that as a member of a disciplined force, the petitioner was expected to uphold the highest standards of conduct. The unauthorized entry into a colleague's residence, particularly in the absence of the colleague and presence of his family, was a serious breach of discipline warranting strict action.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over the case, acknowledged the importance of maintaining discipline within the armed forces. However, he emphasized that disciplinary actions must be fair and proportionate to the misconduct. The court observed that while the petitioner's actions were inappropriate, they did not justify the extreme penalty of dismissal from service.

The judgment highlighted that fairness in administrative decisions is crucial, especially when imposing punishments that affect not only the employee but also their family members by depriving them of their livelihood. The court noted that although allegations were made regarding the petitioner overstaying his sanctioned leave, no specific charge was framed in this regard during the disciplinary proceedings. In the absence of a formal charge and without providing the petitioner an opportunity to defend himself on that count, treating the act as misconduct was deemed unjustified.

Justice Dhand further stated that while discipline is the hallmark of armed forces, and members are expected to adhere strictly to it, the petitioner's conduct, though unbecoming, did not warrant the severest form of punishment. The court opined that a lesser penalty would have been more appropriate, balancing the need for discipline with the principles of fairness and proportionality.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the dismissal order, directing the CRPF to reinstate the petitioner into service. The court also instructed that a lesser punishment, commensurate with the nature of the misconduct, be imposed. This decision underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that disciplinary actions within armed forces are not only aimed at maintaining order but are also just and proportionate, reflecting a balanced approach to justice and discipline.

This ruling serves as a precedent, emphasizing that while maintaining discipline in armed forces is essential, punitive measures must align with the gravity of the misconduct. It reinforces the principle that disciplinary authorities should exercise their powers judiciously, ensuring that penalties are fair, just, and not excessively harsh, thereby upholding the rights and dignity of the personnel while preserving the integrity of the force.