CJI Chandrachud led bench Yesterday (May 8th), said compulsory retirement is another form of terminating the service of an employee and is a well-accepted method of removing dead wood from the cadre without affecting his entitlement for retirement benefits, if otherwise payable.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India upheld the compulsory retirement of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) head constable, Santosh Kumar Tiwari, marking a significant affirmation of disciplinary standards within the force. The decision came after Tiwari was found guilty of assaulting a colleague in 2005, an act that led to his compulsory retirement as a disciplinary measure.
“Ordinarily, compulsory retirement is not considered a punishment. But if the service rules permit it to be imposed by way of a punishment, subject to an enquiry, so be it,”
-a bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said.
The top court on Wednesday upheld validity of punishment of compulsory retirement prescribed by Rule 27 under the Central Reserve Police Force Act.
This judgment overturns previous rulings by the Orissa High Court, which had contested the severity of the punishment, arguing that such a penalty was not explicitly prescribed under the statutory framework governing the CRPF.
The Supreme Court bench clarified that the central government possesses broad authority under Section 8 of the CRPF Act to maintain and enforce discipline within the ranks. This includes the power to establish rules for compulsory retirement, which, according to the court, serves as a necessary tool to “weed out undesirable elements” and ensure the efficiency and control of the force.
“To keep the Force efficient, weeding out undesirable elements therefrom is essential and is a facet of control over the Force, which the central government has over the Force by virtue of Section 8 of the CRPF Act,”
-the bench stated, underscoring the importance of such measures in maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the force.
The court further elaborated that the legislative intent behind the CRPF Act was not to limit disciplinary actions to the minor punishments specified in Section 11 but to allow the central government the flexibility to enact rules to support the overall purposes of the Act, including the superintendence and administration of the force.
The ruling highlights the court’s stance that the punishment meted out to Tiwari was not “shockingly disproportionate” to his misconduct. Instead, it was seen as a balanced response, given his previous service record and the need to uphold the high standards expected of a disciplined force like the CRPF.
“The punishment awarded is also not shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct. Rather, considering his past service, already a sympathetic view has been taken in the matter and no further latitude need be shown to the respondent who was part of a disciplined force and has been found guilty of assaulting his colleague,”
-the court explained.
This decision reaffirms the judiciary’s support for robust disciplinary measures within security forces, emphasizing the critical role of such measures in preserving the operational integrity and discipline essential for such entities.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CRPF
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
