Apathetic Pen-Pushing: Supreme Court Orders Promotion of CRPF Officer; Directs Payment Of Rs 10 Lakh In His Favor For Prolonged Litigation
The Supreme Court was of the view that a promising career in the CRPF was sacrificed by the Authorities due to callous indifference.
Justice J. B. Pardiwala, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has granted relief to a CRPF Officer who was denied fruitful employment and a promising career because of the callous indifference to the repeated directions of the High Court to reconsider the issue. Highlighting the apathetic pen-pushing, the Apex Court asked the Union of India and the CRPF to pay him Rs 10 lakh for the prolonged litigation.
The Apex Court was of the view that a promising career in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was sacrificed by the Departmental Authorities at the altar of callous indifference to the directions of the High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandranm held, “We are hence concerned in adjusting the equities insofar as the appellant being denied fruitful employment and a promising career because of the callous indifference to the repeated directions of the High Court to reconsider the issue and also the apathetic pen-pushing which led to the opinion of the competent authority being digressed from based on a wrong understanding of the response of the UPSC; at the second instance, when UPSC clearly permitted the D.A to take an independent view.”
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, we are also inclined to quash the contempt proceedings, though a case is made out, but on the condition of payment of Rs.10 lakhs to the appellant, defraying the costs of the prolonged litigation spanning more than a quarter century. The cost shall be paid within two months, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 7%”, it ordered.
Factual Background
An Assistant Commandant’s active service was curtailed to a little more than a decade-and-a-half while two-and-a-half decades were spent in litigation. The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Commandant in the year 1986, and in 1989 he was charge-sheeted for misconduct. The misconduct alleged was that while functioning as an Officer Commanding of a platoon deployed in a sensitive area, he handed over charge to an Inspector without approval from the competent authority and willfully remained absent without proper leave from April 7, 1988 for a period of 420 days, thereby violating the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCA Rules). The inquiry culminated in a finding of guilt, and after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which concurred with the imposition of a penalty of removal from service, the appellant was imposed with such penalty on July 10, 1995.
The appellant’s appeal was rejected. A Writ Petition filed in the year 1996 was disposed of in the year 2000 directing reconsideration of the appeal filed by the appellant. A Division Bench remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the Single Judge. In 2011, a Single Judge of the High Court, finding that the Disciplinary Authority (D.A) had merely reproduced the charges and imposed the major penalty, set aside the order for non-application of mind and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the D.A. In the writ appeal, a Division Bench directed the appellant to be reinstated in 2012, subject to suitable action taken in accordance with law. A Special Leave Petition filed by the Department was rejected, which led to reinstatement of the appellant in 2015. However, the order of reinstatement also specified that the appellant would be under deemed suspension thus keeping the appellant away from serving as an officer.
Arguments
According to the appellant, the implementation of the directions required the respondent to reinstate him in service from July 10, 1995. The appellant claimed that the directions of the High Court with respect to pay fixation, seniority and all other consequential benefits including promotion had to necessarily follow. Attention was also brought to the fact that there was a direction by the Single Judge to promote the petitioner to the post of I.G, which post was occupied by his immediate junior.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the appellant retired from service, rendering him unemployed for more than two decades and putting to jeopardy a promising career which otherwise the appellant could have had. The Bench further found that the D.A at the second instance listed out the mitigating circumstances requiring imposition of only a minor penalty, which were disregarded based on a query initiated by an Under Secretary.
“It is trite that a judicial review under Article 226, of an order passed in a departmental inquiry holding the delinquent guilty and imposing punishment, is not concerned with the merits of the case and is more on procedure; unless the decision is without authority or vitiated by patent arbitrariness, extraneous considerations or is blatantly perverse. It is bearing in mind the trite principle that the constitutional courts restrain themselves from interfering with the discretion cast on the D.A either on the finding with respect to the misconduct or the punishment imposed, which primarily is the prerogative of the employer”, it added.
The Bench was of the view that the authorities; be it the original authority or the appellate authority, should be cautious to consider the matter and not merely reiterate the earlier findings in mechanical compliance of the directions issued, when a Constitutional Court directs reconsideration. “When the High Court by Annexure P-3 directed imposition of a minor penalty as decided by the D.A, it necessarily has to relate back to the date of appellant’s initial termination i.e., 10.07.1995. The rigor of punishment thus, would be over on 10.07.1998 and since the appellant was out of service it does not visit any consequence on him since only notional benefits are given during the said period, the reduction by one stage being non-cumulative and leaves the pension unaffected”, it added.
The Bench held that when the review DPC was held on March 14, 2023 and the appellant was promoted as Deputy Commandant w.e.f. October 17, 2021, it had to be with all attendant benefits from the date on which he was eligible for promotion i.e.; the date on which others were promoted through the DPC, review of which was carried out.
The Bench thus directed the appellant to be promoted from the date on which the other Assistant Commandants were promoted as per the original DPC; of which review DPC was held on March 14, 2023. “The appellant shall be paid the entire back wages from the date of entitlement to promotion as a Deputy Commandant, as per the review DPC held on 14.03.2023”, it ordered while allowing the appeal.
Cause Title: Prakash Kumar Dixit v. Ajay Kumar Bhalla (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 725)