Prior approval for appointment does not curtail separate dismissal power; limited equitable relief granted despite upheld dismissal.

A prior-approval requirement for appointment or promotion under the CRPF Rules did not limit a separately conferred disciplinary power to dismiss a Subedar (Inspector); the Deputy Inspector General's dismissal order was therefore valid. The interpretation rejected any addition of words to Rule 27 and declined to supply a casus omissus. On proportionality, the record was insufficient for a full merits reassessment of punishment, but the employee's long service and the available materials justified limited equitable monetary relief. The dismissal was upheld, while monetary relief was granted in lieu of further interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Deputy Inspector General had authority under the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 to dismiss a Subedar (Inspector) without the Inspector General's prior approval; (ii) whether, in the facts of the case, any further relief was warranted on the question of proportionality of punishment and past service record.

Issue (i): Whether the Deputy Inspector General had authority under the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 to dismiss a Subedar (Inspector) without the Inspector General's prior approval.

Analysis: Rule 7(b) makes the Commandant the appointing authority for non-gazetted ranks, while requiring prior approval of superior authorities only for appointment or promotion in specified cases. Rule 27 separately authorises the Deputy Inspector General to inflict the punishment of dismissal or removal on a Subedar (Inspector) after a departmental enquiry. The requirement of prior approval for appointment or promotion does not convert the Inspector General into the appointing authority for disciplinary action. No words can be added into Rule 27 on the basis of construction, and no casus omissus could be supplied.

Conclusion: The dismissal order passed by the Deputy Inspector General was valid and the challenge to his competence failed.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the facts of the case, any further relief was warranted on the question of proportionality of punishment and past service record.

Analysis: The record before the Court was insufficient to reach a definitive conclusion on proportionality of the punishment in relation to the charges proved. At the same time, the deceased employee had served for a long period, and the service records and disciplinary records available before the Court did not fully permit a merits-based reconsideration of punishment. In these peculiar circumstances, the interests of justice warranted monetary relief in lieu of further interference.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to ex gratia payment of Rs. 2.5 lakhs.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal was upheld, but the appellant obtained limited monetary relief on equitable considerations, and the appeal stood finally disposed of on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A provision requiring prior approval for appointment or promotion does not by itself restrict a separately conferred disciplinary power of dismissal, and courts cannot add words to a clear statutory rule under the guise of interpretation.

---