Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Union Of India vs No. 900224364 Const/G.D. Jageshwar … on 20 May, 2025
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.18628/2019)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
NO.900224364 CONST/G.D. JAGESHWAR SINGH RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The Union of India and the Indo Tibetan Border
Police (in short, the “ITBP”) are in appeal against the
order dated 27.09.2018 passed by a Division Bench of the
High Court of Uttarakhand, whereby the order dated
08.11.2012 rendered by a learned Single Judge has been
upheld. The cumulative fact of both the orders is that
the respondent, who was dismissed from service, has been
granted relief with respect to the quantum of punishment
and a direction has been issued to the appellants to
reconsider whether the order of dismissal could be
reduced to any lesser punishment.
3. The respondent was recruited as a Constable in ITBP
on 30.11.1990. He was performing the duty of Sentry
during the intervening night of 04.07.2005/05.07.2005 at
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Kote. In the Kote, cash boxes of ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘XE’ and ‘T’
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2025.06.02
16:56:34 IST
Reason:
Coys were kept. The respondent knew that the cash box
1
contained lakhs of rupees for disbursement to the Coy
personnel. The respondent allegedly broke open the lock
of the Kote, took the cash, concealed the cash box about
200 yards away from the Kote, and ran away from the Post.
4. When the incident came to the notice of the Company
Commander, he immediately made a search of the nearby
area as well as the vehicle going towards Uttar Kashi,
but the respondent could not be traced. The Company
Commander then reported the matter to the Commanding
Officer of the Battalion. This followed an FIR on
06.07.2005 registered against the respondent. The FIR was
followed by a Court of Enquiry, in which it was duly
established that respondent was guilty of committing the
crime. In fact, on being arrested, the respondent
confessed his complicity, and pursuant to the findings
given by the Summary Force Court, he was dismissed from
service on 14.11.2005. In the said enquiry, the
respondent was found guilty on all five charges. He filed
a departmental appeal, which was dismissed. The
respondent thereafter approached the High Court through a
writ petition. The learned Single Judge of the High Court
rejected the respondent’s contention that confession was
made under threat or coercion and categorically held
that, “I am unable to accept this belated plea as conduct
of the petitioner does not demonstrate that it was
procured under threat and coercion. It would have been
2
open for the petitioner to approach the closest police
station for recording his protest that confessional
statement has been obtained by threat.” The learned
Single Judge, thus, firmly held that the story of
involuntary confession was unacceptable.
5. Learned Single Judge thereafter delved into the
issue of quantum of punishment and observed that the
Disciplinary Authority has straightaway passed the
extreme punishment of dismissal from service. It was
opined that the proportionality principle was not
followed, and as such, the order of dismissal from
service as well as the Appellate order “suffer from
serious infirmity and illegality as it is a question of
taking away of livelihood of a particular person.”
6. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, observed that
respondent did not deny, rather cooperated with the
Disciplinary Authority, himself, making it clear that he
was guilty of the misconduct. This amounted to “clear
conscience and repentance”. This change in mind,
according to the High Court, stood as a marker that the
respondent sought to rectify himself. It is after these
observations that the learned Single Judge concluded as
follows:
“I, therefore, keep both the orders in abeyance
for its operation and I direct the Appellate
Authority, who is a superior one, with an
independent mind and without being influenced
by the earlier decision, shall consider the
question of quantum of punishment in the facts3
and circumstances of this case and in the
process, the petitioner should be heard
personally with service of notice. In the
event, the order of dismissal is reduced to any
sort of punishment lesser than dismissal one
then the earlier orders will stand set aside
and the fresh order, which might be passed will
be in operation. Consequently, the petitioner
will get benefit to that extent.”
7. The Union of India and ITBP preferred an Intra-
Court Appeal, which has been summarily dismissed by a
Division Bench of the High Court vide the impugned order,
after finding that “there is no illegality or perversity
in the order dated 08.11.2012, rendered by learned Single
Judge”. It was also observed that the only direction
issued was to reconsider the quantum of punishment, which
must be commensurate with the alleged misconduct.
8. Still aggrieved, the appellants are before this
Court. On 02.08.2019, notice was issued and operation of
the order of the High Court was stayed.
9. We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General
of India on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Neema, a
bright and brilliant young lawyer, on behalf of the
respondent.
10. As a general principle, not only in service
jurisprudence but also in other branches of law, the
doctrine of proportionality is deeply embedded as a part
of constitutionalism. Traces of this doctrine are visible
through Articles 14, 16, and 21 of our Constitution. The
doctrine of proportionality forbids the competent
4
Authority to act arbitrarily, vengefully, or so harshly
that the punishment awarded to a delinquent employee
pricks the conscience of the Court. For example, when the
punishment of dismissal is awarded on a trivial issue,
the Court will be well within its jurisdiction to
question the quantum of punishment and annul it. However,
the enforcement of the maxim varies from case to case as
the facts and circumstances of each case are necessary
parameters to decide how to invoke this principle.
11. In the instant case, the respondent was a member of
a disciplined Para Military Force. He was posted in a
sensitive border area. He was performing the duties of
Sentry on the consequential night, fully aware of the
cash amount lying in the cash box. The respondent, was
obligated to perform his duties and guard the cash boxes
with utmost dedication, honesty, commitment, and
discipline. However, contrary to the faith and trust
reposed in him by his superiors, he broke open the cash
box. He has, therefore, committed robbery of the cash
amount, which he was designated to protect. The
allegation has been duly proved against the respondent in
the Summary Court Proceedings based upon the multiplicity
of evidence, including the confessional statement made by
respondent. The fairness of the summary enquiry or the
genuineness of the respondent’s confession has not been
doubted by the High Court. Furthermore, a positive
5
finding, upholding the enquiry as well as the voluntary
confession, has been returned. On being found guilty of
gross misconduct involving moral turpitude, it became the
bounden duty of the Disciplinary Authority to impose a
befitting punishment upon the respondent. This duty is
amplified, especially in Para Military Forces, where
discipline, ethics, loyalty, dedication to service, and
reliability are essential to the job. All members of the
force must note that there is zero tolerance for such
brazen misconduct, where the guardian of the cash box
became its looter.
12. The past service record of the respondent also
dissuades any sympathy. It is on record that he was found
guilty of minor misconducts on eight separate occasions,
where punishments were awarded. It may be true that the
previous punishments would ordinarily not be a factor to
determine the quantum of punishment with respect to the
subject misconduct. However, the High Court’s reasoning,
that “livelihood of a person, has to be evaluated keeping
the overall conduct of an official,” would fail to
overcome the undesirable trails of misconduct left by the
respondent over the years. The High Court ought not to
have exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to compel
the Authorities to impose a punishment less than
dismissal from service. In fact, the misconduct proved
against the respondent is so grave and alarming that any
6
punishment less than dismissal from service would prove
inadequate and insufficient.
13. For the reasons aforestated, we allow the appeal;
set aside the impugned order dated 27.09.2018 and order
dated 08.11.2012 of the High Court to the extent of
directing reconsideration of the punishment imposed; and
consequently, dismiss the writ petition filed by the
respondent before the High Court. Ordered accordingly.
………………………J.
(SURYA KANT)
……………………..
.J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
New Delhi
May 20, 2025
7
ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.2 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).18628/2019
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-09-2018
in SPA No.200/2013 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital]
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
NO.900224364 CONST/G.D. JAGESHWAR SINGH Respondent(s)
Date : 20-05-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Brijender Chahar, A.S.G.
Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv.
Mr. Sarthak Karol, Adv.
Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Ms. Neema, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
2. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
[Signed order is placed on the file]
8