(Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)
Union of India and Others __________________________ Appellant(s);
v.
Ex-Const. Daya Shankar Rai _________________________ Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 3487 of 2018 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6688 of 2016], decided on April 2, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellants as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. By the impugned judgment and order dated 19th August, 2015, the punishment of dismissal from service was reduced by the Division Bench of the High Court to stoppage of three increments. Naturally, the High Court ordered reinstatement of the respondent.
4. 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, the respondent is stated to have committed misconduct on two occasions.
5. On or about 19th February, 2000, the respondent entered into a scuffle with his superior officer who was a Head Constable. Accordingly, a charge sheet was issued to the respondent 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. G-2609 resulting which HC Shiv Narayan Singh suffered injuries in his eye head and left shoulder”.
6. After a departmental enquiry, it was decided that the respondent should be dismissed from service.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 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.”
10. 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.
11. Learned Additional Solicitor General has drawn our attention to Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka [(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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. The appeal is allowed.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3487 OF 2018
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6688 of 2016]
Union of India & Ors _______________________________ Petitioner(s)
v.
Ex-Const. Daya Shankar Rai _________________________ Respondent
Date : 02-04-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG
Mr. Nalin Kohli, Adv.
Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Roy, Adv.
Mr. Indrajeet Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ashey Amritanshu, Adv.
Ms. Pooja Dhar, Adv.
Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv.,
Ms. 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
ORDER
15. Leave granted.
16. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
———
