20 May 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court has set aside the orders of the Uttarakhand High Court, which had directed the Union of India and the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) to reconsider the quantum of punishment for a dismissed Constable. The High Court had suggested that the extreme punishment of dismissal might be disproportionate, despite the Constable's proven misconduct.

The Case in Brief:

The respondent, a Constable in the ITBP, was dismissed from service in 2005 after being found guilty of breaking into a Kote (cash box storage), stealing a significant amount of cash, and absconding from his post. The incident, which occurred during his duty as Sentry, led to an FIR, a Court of Enquiry, and his subsequent arrest. During the enquiry, the respondent confessed to his complicity, leading to his dismissal. His departmental appeal was also dismissed.

High Court's Intervention:

The respondent then approached the High Court. While the learned Single Judge upheld the findings of the enquiry and the voluntariness of the confession, it questioned the proportionality of the dismissal, stating that such an "extreme punishment" affected the respondent's livelihood. The Single Judge observed that the respondent's cooperation and "clear conscience and repentance" warranted a reconsideration of the punishment. Consequently, the High Court directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment, suggesting a lesser penalty might be appropriate. This decision was upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision:

The Union of India and ITBP appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing against the High Court's intervention.

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the general principle of proportionality in jurisprudence, emphasized that its application varies with the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court highlighted several critical points:

• Nature of Service: The respondent was a member of a disciplined Para Military Force posted in a sensitive border area, where discipline, ethics, and loyalty are paramount.
• Gravity of Misconduct: The respondent committed a severe act of moral turpitude by stealing cash he was designated to protect. This was not a "trivial issue."
• Proof of Guilt: The allegations were duly proved in the Summary Court Proceedings, including a voluntary confessional statement, the fairness of which was not doubted by the High Court.
• Past Conduct: The respondent had a history of eight prior minor misconducts, which, according to the Supreme Court, contradicted the High Court's reasoning about "overall conduct" and "repentance."
• Zero Tolerance: The Court stressed the need for "zero tolerance for such brazen misconduct" within disciplined forces, stating that any punishment less than dismissal would be "inadequate and insufficient."

For these reasons, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's orders to the extent they directed reconsideration of the punishment. The Supreme Court effectively reinstated the original dismissal order, dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent before the High Court.