WWW.LIVELAW.IN 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3487 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.6688 of 2016)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
APPELLANT(s) VERSUS
EX-CONST. DAYA SHANKAR RAI
RESPONDENT(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted. We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellants as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent. By the impugned judgment and order dated 19th August, 2015, reduced
the by
punishment the
of
Division
dismissal Bench
stoppage of three increments.
of
from the
service
High
was
Court
to
Naturally, the High Court
ordered reinstatement of the respondent. It
appears
that
the
respondent
was
enrolled
as
a
Constable (General Duty) in the Border Security Force on 16th February, 1991.
During the course of his employment,
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date: 2018.04.04 17:28:24 IST Reason:
the respondent is stated to have committed misconduct on two occasions.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 2
On
or
about
19th
February,
2000,
the
respondent
entered into a scuffle with his superior officer who was a Head Constable. to
the
respondent
Accordingly, a charge sheet was issued in
which
the
following
charge
was
framed: “BSF ACT SECTION 20(a) - USING CRIMINAL FORCE TO HIS SUPERIOR OFFICER In that he, having been deployed at BOP Pipli on 19.2.2000 at about 2215 hrs. while performing sentry duty of BOP used criminal force to No.75002627 HC Shiv Narayn Singh BOP Comdr by assaulting him with his personal rifle butt No.G2609 resulting which HC Shiv Narayan Singh suffered injuries in his eye head and left shoulder”. After a departmental enquiry, it was decided that the respondent should be dismissed from service. Feeling
aggrieved
by
the
order
of
dismissal,
the
respondent preferred a writ petition which came to be partly allowed by the High Court, as mentioned above. On going through the records of the case, we find that
the
nature
of
injuries
caused
to
the
superior
officer by the respondent was by the use of torch and butt of the rifle. The High Court has mentioned the nature of injuries which are as follows: “...It is submitted that in that case Constable Bhisham Singh had also caused injuries on the right eye, superficial cut at lower eye lid and clot at nostrils accompanied by swelling around the nose and the Court had upheld the penalty of dismissal from service while in the present case, the petitioner had caused even more serious injuries i.e. undisplaced fracture of the middle
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 3
part of the spine of left scapula and ecchymosis around left eye and abrasions on pinaa of left ear and contusion over preauricular region. Also, on earlier two occasions, the petitioner had been found guilty of misconducts under Section 19(b) (overstaying from leave without sufficient cause) and Section 40 (act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force.” In view of the serious nature of injuries and the fact that the respondent belongs to a disciplined force, we
are
of
the
view
that
the
High
Court
was
far
too
liberal in reducing the penalty of dismissal to that of stoppage of three increments. Learned Additional Solicitor General has drawn our attention to Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others [(2006) 1 SCC 430] where a superior officer had been assaulted (not in a disciplined force but in a school) with a chappal.
On
hearing the parties, this Court took the view that an assault
on
a
superior
officer
should
attract
severe
penalty. We are in agreement with the view expressed, more particularly
in
a
case
as
the
present,
where
the
respondent belonged to a disciplined force and used the butt of the rifle for injuring a superior officer very seriously. Under
the
circumstances,
we
set
aside
the
order
passed by the High Court and restore the departmental punishment of dismissal from service on the respondent.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 4
The appeal is allowed.
.............................J. (MADAN B. LOKUR)
.............................J. (DEEPAK GUPTA) NEW DELHI APRIL 02, 2018
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 5
ITEM NO.43
COURT NO.3 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SECTION XIV I N D I A
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3487 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.6688 of 2016) UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Petitioner(s) VERSUS
EX-CONST. DAYA SHANKAR RAI
Respondent(s)
Date : 02-04-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Ms.
Maninder Singh, ASG Nalin Kohli, Adv. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv. Ankit Roy, Adv. Indrajeet Singh, Adv. Ashey Amritanshu, Adv. Pooja Dhar, Adv. Ritesh Kumar, Adv. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv., Sushma Suri, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Anant Vijay Palli, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Palli, Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (KAILASH CHANDER) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file)
