Disciplinary dismissal in a disciplined force stands where grave misconduct makes punishment proportionate and judicial review remains limited.

A sentence of imprisonment for misconduct in a disciplined force can justify dismissal where the governing provision leaves the competent authority discretion and the offence is serious. The Court noted that prejudicial acts affecting good order and discipline, including unauthorised absence, reporting under intoxication, and threatening a superior with a rifle, were grave breaches warranting dismissal. Judicial review of punishment remains narrow and permits interference only where the penalty is strikingly disproportionate or irrational. On that standard, the High Court should not have interfered, and the dismissal was left intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a member of the CRPF sentenced to imprisonment for a less heinous offence under Section 10(n) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 could be dismissed from service under Section 12(1) of that Act; (ii) whether the High Court could interfere with the dismissal on the ground that the punishment was disproportionate.

Issue (i): whether a member of the CRPF sentenced to imprisonment for a less heinous offence under Section 10(n) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 could be dismissed from service under Section 12(1) of that Act.

Analysis: Section 10(n) makes prejudicial acts affecting good order and discipline punishable with imprisonment, while Section 12(1) states that every person sentenced under the Act to imprisonment may be dismissed from the Force. The word "may" confers discretion on the competent authority, which must consider the nature of the offence and the seriousness of the misconduct. The proven acts of indiscipline included leaving duty without permission, reporting under intoxication, and snatching and pointing a rifle at a superior officer, all of which were serious breaches of discipline in a disciplined force.

Conclusion: The dismissal from service under Section 12(1) was legally permissible and justified.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court could interfere with the dismissal on the ground that the punishment was disproportionate.

Analysis: Judicial review of punishment is limited. Interference is warranted only where the penalty is strikingly disproportionate or where perversity or irrationality is apparent on the face of the record. In the present case, the misconduct proved against the respondent was grave and the punishment of dismissal was not shown to be of that extreme character. The High Court therefore erred in substituting its own view on proportionality.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of dismissal on the ground of proportionality.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the order of the High Court was set aside, leaving the dismissal from service intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers discretion to dismiss a member of a disciplined force upon sentence of imprisonment, the dismissal will not be interfered with in judicial review unless the punishment is strikingly disproportionate or otherwise irrational in the face of grave proved misconduct.

---