REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

      CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1429-1430 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP  (C) Nos.6975-6976/2009)

Angad Das ..      Appellant

VERSUS

Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. People  in  power  and  authority  should  not  easily  lose  

equanimity, composure and appreciation for the problems of  

the  lesser  mortals.   They are  always expected to  remember  

that  power  and  authority  must  be  judiciously  exercised  

according to the laws and human compassion.  Arrogance and  

vanity have no place in discharge of their official functions and  

duties.

1

2. Delay condoned.  Leave granted.

3. Heard the learned Additional  Solicitor  General  and the  

learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  at  length.   Brief  facts  

necessary  to  dispose  of  these  appeals  are  recapitulated  as  

under:-

4. The appellant was recruited as a Constable in the Central  

Reserve Police Force, Balia Police Line in the State of U.P. in  

the year 1969.  He was promoted to the post of Lance Naik,  

then as Naik and thereafter  to the post of  Head Constable.  

When  the  appellant  was  posted  as  a  Head  Constable  at  

Jammu  and  Kashmir,  he  was  served  a  show  cause  notice  

dated  11.4.1995  by  the  Commandant  51  BN,  C.R.P.F.  

(respondent no.4) alleging that the date of birth as given by  

him at the time of  joining the service was found false.   An  

enquiry  was  conducted  and  thereafter  the  appellant  was  

compulsorily retired from the service by way of punishment by  

2

an order dated 14th June, 1996 by respondent no.4.  The said  

order reads as under:-

“After careful thought and keeping in view of  his long service career, a family to support and  considering  natural  justice,  I  hereby  impose  the  punishment  of  ‘COMPULSORY  RETIREMENT  FROM  SERVICE  WITH  FULL  PENSIONARY  BENEFITS  AND GRATUITY’  on  No.690298321 HC Angad Dass w.e.f. 31/5/96  AN, in pursuance of the authority vested in me  under  Section 11(1)  of  CRPF Act,  1949 read  with table below Rule 27 of CRPF Rule 1955.”

5. The appellant had sent a very polite letter of request to  

the  Additional  District  Inspector  General,  Police  (for  short,  

DIG)  praying  that  his  request  for  re-employment  be  kindly  

considered  because  he  has  enormous  responsibility  of  

educating and marrying five daughters.  The prayer was made  

with folded hands and touching his feet.  The letter reflected  

pinnacle  of  humility.   The  relevant portion of  request  letter  

reads as under:-

“I  am  burdened  with  the  education  and  marriages of five daughters and I am the only  earning hand and according to the hereditary  record of Gram Panchayat my date of birth is  

3

8.7.47.  I had received that record under the  order of BDO.  I am also having certificate from  the Gram Pradhan.   I,  therefore,  with folded  hands and touching the feet praying that I may  be allowed to complete the service and I may  be awarded any other punishment otherwise,  seven people will be uprooted and will resort to  beggary  and  will  fall  on  the  wrong  path  for  earning their bread.”

6. Respondent No.4 would have been fully justified in either  

accepting  or  declining  the  appellant’s  request  for  re-

employment,  but  astonishingly,  on  8th October,  1996  the  

request letter of the appellant for re-employment was treated  

as an appeal by the DIG Police, CRPF, Avadi, Madras and the  

punishment  of  “compulsory  retirement”  as  awarded  by  the  

Commandant, 51 BN, CRPF, was enhanced to that of “removal  

from service”  w.e.f.  31.5.1996.   No provision of  law permits  

him to treat a letter of request for re-employment as an appeal.  

The DIG (Police)  has no power  or  authority  to enhance  the  

sentence of the appellant.   We fail to comprehend how such  

an  innocuous  and  polite  letter  of  request  seeking  re-

employment on compassionate ground can ever receive such  

4

an unwarranted and arrogant reaction.  The order is wholly  

arbitrary and illegal.

7. The appellant aggrieved by the said order filed a revision  

petition  before  the  Special  Director  General,  C.R.P.F.,  

Hyderabad who unfortunately passed the following order on  

2nd August,  1997.  The relevant part of the order reads as  

under:-

“HC  Angad  Das  of  51  BN  CRPF  is  hereby  removed from service with effect from the date  of issue of this order. The intervening period  between 31-5-96 (AN) to the date of this order  will be treated as ‘Dies Non’ for all purposes.”

8. We are astonished as to how a simple letter of request for  

re-employment has been treated as an appeal by the D.I.G.  

Police, CRPF, and in exercise of his power under Rule 28 of the  

CRPF Rules, 1955, the punishment of “compulsory retirement”  

from  service  has  been  enhanced  to  “removal  from  service”  

w.e.f. 31.5.1996.  The mere letter for re-employment could not  

have been treated as an appeal under Rule 28 of the CRPF  

Rules, 1955.  The D.I.G. Police, CRPF, was totally unjustified  

5

in enhancing the punishment from “compulsory retirement” to  

“removal from service”.  The order was legally untenable.  The  

Special Director General has also seriously erred in upholding  

the order dated 8th October, 1996 passed by the D.I.G. Police,  

CRPF.

9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we  

are constrained to set aside the orders dated 8th October, 1996  

and  2nd August,  1997.   Consequently,  the  order  dated  

21.5.1996  passed  by  the  Commandant,  51  BN,  CRPF  as  

amended by order dated 14.6.1996 of compulsory retirement  

is restored.  The appellant would be entitled to all the benefits  

which flow from the said order.

10. The appellant and his family have suffered tremendous  

mental agony and harassment caused to them on account of  

totally arbitrary orders mentioned above.

11. We  also  direct  that  the  appellant  be  paid  all  the  

pensionary benefits which have become due and payable to  

6

him, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, within two  

months from the date of communication of this order.

12. Consequently,  these  appeals  are  allowed.   Respondent  

No.1, Union of India is directed to pay costs of Rs.50,000/- to  

the appellant within two months.

13. We hope and trust that senior officials in future would  

not  be  totally  oblivious of  the  problems of  the  humble  and  

modest employees and pass similar orders.   

…………………………J. (Dalveer Bhandari)

……………………….J.                                                      (A.K. Patnaik)

New Delhi;  February 18. 2010.

7