2021 INSC 0713 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL   APPEAL   NO(S).    6723    OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 34160 of 2016) UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS EX. CONSTABLE RAM KARAN …..RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T Rastogi, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Union   of   India,   in   the   instant   appeal,   has   challenged   the judgment  and order  passed by  the Division Bench of the High Court of   Delhi   substituting   the   penalty   of   removal   from   service   inflicted   on the   respondent   after   holding   disciplinary   inquiry   as   provided   under Rule 27 of  The Central  Reserve Police  Force Rules, 1955  (hereinafter being referred to as the “Rules 1955”) with confinement of respondent from   1.00   p.m.   to   10.00   p.m.   in   quarter   guard   jail   without   noticing the   mandate   of   the   nature   of   punishments   indicated   under   Section 1 11(1) of The Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter being referred to as the “Act 1949”). 3. The brief facts of the case culled out from the record are that the respondent joined service with the Central Reserve Police Force in the year   1983   and   was   on   attachment   duty   at   Group   Centre,   CRPF.   In 2003,   his   wife   was   under   treatment   of   Dr.   Nazir,   Gynaecologist (complainant).     On   12 th   September   2003,   the   respondent accompanied   with   his   wife   forcibly   entered   into   the   chamber   of   the Dr. Nazir­complainant and asked him to attest the reimbursement of medical claims and upon his refusal, the respondent verbally abused and   physically   struck   the   Doctor­Complainant,   resulting   in   injuries. He was escorted out by the Constable Suresh, who also happened to see the conduct of the respondent and his wife.  Respondent not only misbehaved   and   abused   the   Doctor­complainant   while   on   duty   in which   he   sustained   injuries   on   his   face   but   to   conceal   his misconduct,  he  made a  false  allegation  of   sexual   harassment   on  his wife   against   the  Doctor­complainant.     For   such   a   gross   misconduct, which   he   had   committed   while   in   service,   he   was   placed   under suspension and a Charge Memo dated 29 th  October, 2003 for holding 2 disciplinary   inquiry   under   Rule   27   of   the   Rules   1955   came   to   be served   upon   him   for   (i)   violation   of   Section   11(1)   of   the   Rules   1955, for   misbehaving   and   abusing   and   injuring   the   Doctor­complainant while on official duty; and (ii) for instituting false criminal charges of sexual harassment against the Doctor­complainant.  Article of Charge 1   and   Charge   2   of   the   Charge   Memo   along   with   the   details   are reproduced hereunder:­ “ARTICLE I Constable   Driver   No.961340413   Ram   Karan   of   120BN   while being   at   the   post   of   Constable   have   violated   rule   11(1)   being   the member  of  the   force   on  12.9.03   around   12.00  senior   medical   officer who was on official duty Const. Ram Karan misbehaved and abused due to which received injuries near bus left eye which is punishable under the act. ARTICLE II Constable   Driver   Ram   Karan   120   BN   while   being   posted   in Pinjore as Const/Driver in the Month of September 2003 has violated CRPF   rules   1949   rule   11(1)   being   the   member   of   the   force misbehaved  with  doctor   Abdul Nair   abused  him  that   the  doctor  had misbehaved   with   his   wife   Savita   Devi   who   has   visited   the   doctor along with her husband who had violated the said rules.” Details           “The   said   Const/Driver   Rain   Karan   did   10.3.03   to   26.9.03   was posted   in   Pinjore.   Wife   of   Const/Driver   were   under   treatment   of senior   medical   officer   Dr.   Nazir   on   11.9.03   has   set   her   case   for consideration.   Smt.   Savita   dated   12.9.03   around   11.15   has   visited Dr. Nazir  with Cash memo  No.2137  dated  11.9.03  she  left  the room that her husband is going to teach him a lesson. Around 12.00 driver Ram   Karan   visited   the   office   saying   to   authorize   the   cash   memo   in which   medicine   prescribed   by   the   doctor   were   not   mentioned   when refused he misbehaved and abused the doctor. 3            The said, misbehaviour was reported by Dr. Abdul Nazir to the senior   official   Pinjore   on   the   complaint   of   Abdul   Nazir   action   was taken against Cont. Ram Karan and suspended on the same day. In order   to   gain   sympathy   of   the   general   public   he   falsely   made allegation against Dr. Nazir of sexual abuse of his wife. According to const. Ram Karan his wife Savita was under treatment of Dr. Abdul Nazir   and   had   gone   for   a   checkup.   During   check   up   Dr.   Nazir sexually abused her and on calling her husband for help and when his husband entered the room he was beaten by the doctor. Hence   Cont./Driver   Ram   Karan   has   made   false   allegations against Dr. Nazir of sexual abuse of his wife Savita. His only purpose of   doing   so   was   to   save   himself   from   injury   and   gain   sympathy   of public although according to witnesses on 12.9.03 around 12.00 he along with his wife has entered the room of the doctor.” 4. The   departmental   inquiry   was   conducted   by   the   disciplinary authority   in   terms   of   the   procedure   prescribed   under   Rule   27   of Rules   1955   and   after   affording   an   opportunity   of   hearing,   the disciplinary   authority   found   both   the   charges   proved   against   him after due compliance of the principles of natural justice and taking note of the gravity of the charges which were found proved and all other   factors   into   consideration,   punished   him   with   the   penalty   of removal from service by an Order dated 14 th  July, 2004. 5. The   Departmental   Appeal   preferred   against   the   Order   dated 14 th  July, 2004 before the Appellate Authority came to be dismissed by an Order dated 3 rd   January, 2006 and the revision petition also came to be rejected by the revisional authority by an Order dated 1 st 4 October,   2008.     The   penalty   of   removal   from   service   and consequential   orders   passed   by   the   appellate/revisional   authority was the subject matter of challenge by filing writ petition before the High   Court   of   Delhi   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   at   the instance of the respondent. 6. After   taking   note   of   the   factual   matrix   on   record   and   the submissions   made,   the   High   Court   under   its   impugned   judgment dated   11 th   February,   2016   upheld   the   charges   which   were   found proved   by   the   disciplinary   authority   during   the   course   of   inquiry. However,   substituted   the   penalty   of   removal   from   service   inflicted upon the respondent in exercise of the power of judicial review and recorded a finding that looking into the nature of allegations which stand   proved,   the   punishment   of   removal   from   service   is disproportionate   to   the   proved   misconduct   to   confinement   of   the respondent   from   1.00   p.m.   to   10.00   p.m.   in   quarter   guard   jail   as the   adequate   punishment   with   a   further   direction   for   his reinstatement   with   immediate  effect   with   entitlement   of  salary   and other benefits admissible to him  under  the law for  the purposes of 5 calculating   the   pensionary   benefits.     The   relevant   paras   of   the impugned judgment dated 11 th  February, 2016 are as under:­ “19.   The   evidence   of   PW­5   Suresh   shows   that   on   entering   into   Dr. Nazir’s room, he saw both the doctor and the appellant scuffling with each   other   and   they   were   separated   through  his   intervention.   There is   nothing   on  record   to  show   that   the   appellant   had  acted   in   a   pre­ meditated   manner   or   had   planned   the   whole   thing.   The   incident appears   to   have   occurred   at   the   spur   of   the   moment.   Although   the court   cannot   be   certain   about   the   circumstance,   yet   there   can   be   a reasonable   doubt   as   to   whether   there   was   anything   spoken   to   the petitioner’s wife, by Dr. Nazir, which led to the scuffle or altercation. Whilst   the   version  about   the  assault   on   the   petitioner’s  wife  may   be doubtful,   the   statement   made   to   the   police   that   the   doctor   had expressed   something   about   her   character   in   the   context   of   her inability to produce the prescribed medication, for verification, is still open   to   judicial   scrutiny   in   the   application   under   Section   156(3)   of Cr.P.C. of his wife.  20. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of this case, we are   of   the   view   that   the   penalty   of   removal   from   service,   especially when the petitioner has clean record of 11 years of previous service, is disproportionate to the proved charges. Given the circumstances of the case, we feel that confinement of petitioner from 1.00 PM noon to 10.00   PM   in   quarter   guard   jail   was   sufficient   punishment.   We accordingly   order   for   the   reinstatement   of   the   petitioner   with immediate   effect.   The   respondents   are   also   directed   to   treat   the period   from   the   date   of   dismissal   till   the   reinstatement   as   per   the provisions  of  law.  The  petitioner  is  also  entitled  for  salary  and  other benefits   admissible   in   law.   He   shall   be   considered   on   duty   during this period for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits. The petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.” 7. This   Court,   while   issuing   notice   by   an   Order   dated   18 th November   2016,   stayed   the   operation   of   the   impugned   judgment dated 11 th  February, 2016. 6 8. Ms.   Madhavi   Divan,   learned   ASG   appearing   for   the   Union   of India   submits   that   the   interference   which   has   been   made   by   the High   Court   under   its   limited   scope   of   judicial   review   under   Article 226   of   the   Constitution   is   a   clear   abuse   of   judicial   discretion   and such   a   gross   misconduct   which   was   committed   by   the   respondent while serving as member of discipline force in CRPF, in no manner, was pardonable. 9. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   Section   11   of   the scheme   of   Act   1949   has   been   completely   overlooked   by   the   High Court.     That   in   terms   of   Section   11,   the   competent   authority   may award in lieu of or in addition to suspension or dismissal, any one or more of the punishments including confinement in quarter guard jail or removal referred to under clauses (d) and (e) of Section 11(1) of the Act, 1949. 10. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   the   High   Court   has proceeded on its own perception as if it was a case of criminal trial where   incident   can   be   condoned   if   it   has   been   committed   without pre­meditated manner or occurred at the spur of the moment.  This theory   may   not   apply   in   the   case   of   departmental   enquiry   and   in 7 the   given   circumstances,   the   interference   made   by   the   High   Court in   substituting   punishment   under   the   impugned   judgment   dated 11 th   February  2016 is unsustainable in  law  and  deserves to  be set aside. 11. In   support   of   her   submission,   learned   counsel   has   placed reliance   on   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   Union   of   India   and Others Vs. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat. 1   12. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Agrwaal, learned counsel for the respondent,   while   supporting   the   finding   recorded   by   the   High Court in the impugned judgment submits that the respondent had rendered, by that time, 11 years of unblemished service and he had full   respect   and   regard   to   Dr.   Nazir­complainant   but   the circumstances   created   at   the   given   time   were   such   that   were beyond   his   control   and   the   High   Court   has   taken   note   of   not   only the   unblemished   service   of   11   years   but   in   totality   of   the   facts under consideration while holding the punishment of removal from service,     to be disproportionate to the charges proved against him 1 2005(13) SCC 228. 8 and what has been considered by the High Court in the impugned judgment   is   not   only   substituting   the   punishment   but   protecting the   rights   of   the   respondent   and   his   family   and   to   save   his livelihood   and   submits   that   a   justice   has   been   done   by   the   High Court   under   the   impugned   judgment   which   may   not   require   any interference by this Court. 13. We  have  heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and  with   their assistance perused the material available on record. 14. The service conditions of member of the force are governed in accordance with provisions of the Act 1949.   Section 9 and Section 10   provides   the   nature   of   “more   heinous   offences/less   heinous offences”.    The  nature  of  punishments  have  also  been  provided  for more   heinous   offences/less   heinous   offences,   if   found   proved against  member   of  the  force  are  in  the  form  of  imprisonment  for   a term   provided   under   scheme   of   the   Act.     At   the   same   time,   the nature of minor punishments are provided under Section 11 of the Act   1949   and   the   procedure   to   be   followed   by   the   disciplinary authority   has   been   prescribed   under   Rule   27   of   the   Rules   1955. The relevant paras are as under:­  9 “Section   11.   Minor   punishments.   –   (1)   The   Commandant   or   any   other authority   or  officer   as  may   be   prescribed,   may,  subject   to  any   rules  made under this Act, award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more of the following punishments to any member of the Force whom   he   considers   to   be   guilty   of   disobedience,   neglect   of   duty,   or remissness   in   the   discharge   of   any   duty   or   of   other   misconduct   in   his capacity as a member of the Force, that is to say, ­ (a)   reduction in rank; (b)   fine   of   any   amount   not   exceeding   one   month’s   pay   and allowances; (c)     confinement   to   quarters,   lines   or   camp   for   a   term   not exceeding one month; (d)   confinement   in   the   quarter­guard   for   not   more   than   twenty­ eight   days,   with  or   without   punishment   drill  or   extra   guard, fatigue or other duty; and (e)  removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the Force. ......”. “ Rule   27.   Procedure   for   the   Award   of   Punishments.­   (a)   The Punishments shown as items 1 to 11 in column 2 of the table below may he   inflicted   or   non­Gazetted   Officers   and   men   of   the   various   ranks shown   in   each   of   the   headings   of   columns   3   to   6,   by   the   authorities named below such headings under the conditions mentioned in column 7. TABLE Sl. No. Punishment Subedar (Inspector) Sub- Inspector Others except Const & enrolled followers Consts & enrolled followers Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Dismissal or removal from the Force DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt. To be inflicted after formal departmental enquiry. 2. … … … … … … 3. … … … … … … 4. … … … … … … 5. … … … … … … 6. Confinement in the Quarter Guard exceeding seven days but not more than twenty-eight - - - Comdt. To be inflicted after formal departmental enquiry. 10 days with or without punishment drill or extra guard fatigue or other duty. 7. … … … … … … 8. Removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the Force. DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt. May be inflicted without a formal departmental enquiry. 9. … 10. Confinement to Quarter Guard for not more than seven days with or without punishment or extra guard fatigue or other duty. - - - Comdt. - 11. … … … … … … Note.­ 1. When the post of Deputy Inspector General remains unfilled for   a   period   of   over   one   month   at   a   time   the   Commandant   shall exercise the powers of punishing the Subedars (Inspectors) and Sub­ Inspectors   except   the   powers   of   ordering   dismissal   or   removal   from the Force. Note.   ­   2.   When   the   post   of   Commandant   remains   unfilled   for   a period   of   over   one   month   at   a   time   consequent   on   the   incumbent proceeding   on   leave   or   otherwise,   the   Assistant   Commandant   shall exercise   the   powers   of   punishment   vested   in   the   Commandant, except the powers of ordering dismissal or removal from the Force. Explanation:­   (a)   Dismissal   of   member   of   the   Force   precludes   him from  being  re­employed in Government service while removal of any such   member   from   the   Force   shall   not   be   disqualification   for   any future   employment   (other   than   an   employment   in   the   Central Reserve Police Force) under the Government.  (b) When non­gazetted officers or men of the various ranks are to be punished for any offence; a departmental enquiry, if necessary under clause (a) shall be held by the Commandant or other superior officer under the orders of the Commandant, provided that when the charge 11 is   against   an   officer   of   the   rank   of   Subedar   (Inspector)   or   Sub­ Inspector the enquiry shall be held by an authority to be designated for   the   purpose   by   the   Deputy   Inspector   General.   Where   the   officer conducting the enquiry in the case of a Subedar (Inspector) or a Sub­ Inspector considers that a punishment under items (1) to (5) and (7) of   the   Table   is   called   for,   he   shall   complete   the   departmental proceedings   and   forward   the   same   to   the   Deputy   Inspector   General for orders.(GSR 631 dated 27.8.1983)  (c) The procedure for conducting a departmental enquiry shall be as follows:­  (1) The substance of the accusation shall be reduced to the form of a written   charge,   which   should   be   as   precise   as   possible.   The charge shall be read out to the accused and a copy  of it  given to him at least 48 hrs. before the commencement of the enquiry.  (2) At the commencement  of the enquiry the accused shall be asked to   enter   a   plea   of   “Guilty”   or   “Not   Guilty”   after   which   evidence necessary   to   establish   the   charge   shall   be   let   in.   The   evidence shall   be   material   to   the   charge   and   may   either   be   oral   or documentary, if oral:  (i) it shall be direct:  (ii) it   shall   be   recorded   by   the   Officer   conducting,   the   enquiry himself in the presence of the accused:  (iii) the   accused   shall   be   allowed   to   cross   examine   the witnesses.          ……..” 15. The   scheme   of   Section   11   of   the   Act   1949   mandates   that   the competent authority  may, subject to  rules made thereunder, award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more punishment if found guilty of misconduct in his capacity as member of the force. 12 16. The   use   of   words   ‘in   lieu   of,   or   in   addition   to,   suspension   or dismissal’,   appearing   in   Section   11(1)   clearly   indicates   that   the authorities mentioned therein are empowered to award punishment of   suspension   or   dismissal   to   member   of   the   force   who   is   found guilty   and   in   addition   to,   or   in   lieu   thereof,   the   punishment mentioned in clause (a) to (e) may also be awarded. 17. It   may   be   noted   that   more   heinous   offences   or   less   heinous offences prescribe penalty of sentence of imprisonment if member of the force is found guilty.   At the same time, Section 11 is clear and unambiguous   and   prescribe   those   minor   punishments   which   the competent authority may award in a departmental inquiry in lieu of or   in   addition   to   suspension   or   dismissal   any   one   or   more   of   the punishments to member of the force as referred under clauses (a) to (e) of Section 11(1) of the Act 1949 even if the member has not been prosecuted for an offence under Section 9 or Section 10 of the Act.  18. It   is   also   well   settled   that   removal   and   dismissal   from   service stand   on   the   same   footing   and   both   terminate   the   relationship   of employer/employee.   The only  difference between the two is that in 13 the case of dismissal, it precludes the employee from seeking future employment   in   the   Government   while   in   the   case   of   removal,   he   is not   disqualified   from   any   future   employment.     By   virtue   of   an explanation  appended  to   Rule  27  of   the   scheme  of   Rules  1955,   the rule making authority has made it clear that dismissal of a member of   the   force   precludes   him   from   being   re­employed   in   Government service, while removal of any such member from the force shall not be   disqualification,   for   any   future   employment   (other   than   an employment   in   the   Central   Reserve   Police   Force)   under   the Government. 19. In   the   instant   case,   the   respondent   has   been   punished   with penalty   of   removal   from   service   after   the   charges   levelled   against him   stood   proved   by   the   disciplinary   authority   in   a   departmental inquiry   held   against   him   after   going   through   the   procedure prescribed under Rule 27 of the Rules 1955.   Such nature of minor punishment   of   removal   from   service   could   be   in   addition   to dismissal as being provided under Section 11 of the Act 1949.   14 20. Section 11 of the Act 1949 has been completely  overlooked by the   High   Court   while   examining   as   to   whether   the   punishment   of removal   from   service   could   be   inflicted   in   lieu   of   or   in   addition   to dismissal   from   service   to   member   of   the   force,   if   the   misconduct stands  proved  in the  course of  disciplinary  inquiry  and  after  it was confirmed by the High Court under the impugned judgment. 21. The   nature   of   allegations   against   the   respondent   are   indeed grave   in   nature   as   the   respondent   not   only   threatened   the   Doctor­ complainant  but  has  misbehaved and   abused  and  injured  him  and made false allegations against him of sexual harassment to his wife. Such   a   nature   of   misconduct   which   has   been   committed   by   the respondent once stand proved is unpardonable and if the authority has considered it appropriate to punish him with penalty of removal from service by an Order dated 14 th  July 2004 and confirmed by the appellate/revisional   authority   and   by   the   High   Court   in   the impugned judgment leaves no sympathy for retention in service and that too in a discipline force like CRPF. 15 22. The well ingrained principle of law is that it is the disciplinary authority, or the appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature   of   punishment   to   be   given   to   the   delinquent   employee. Keeping   in   view   the   seriousness   of   the   misconduct   committed   by such   an   employee,   it   is   not   open   for   the   Courts   to   assume   and usurp the function of the disciplinary authority. 23. Even   in   cases   where   the   punishment   imposed   by   the disciplinary   authority   is   found   to   be   shocking   to   the   conscience   of the   Court,   normally   the   disciplinary   authority   or   the   appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the question of imposition of   penalty.   The   scope   of   judicial   review   on   the   quantum   of punishment   is   available   but   with   a   limited   scope.     It   is   only   when the   penalty   imposed   appears   to   be   shockingly   disproportionate   to the nature of misconduct that the Courts would frown upon.   Even in such a case, after setting aside the penalty order, it is to be left to the   disciplinary/appellate   authority   to   take   a   call   and   it   is   not   for the   Court   to   substitute   its   decision   by   prescribing   the   quantum   of punishment.  However, it is only in rare and exceptional cases where the   court   might   to   shorten   the   litigation   may   think   of   substituting 16 its   own   view   as   to   the   quantum   of   punishment   in   place   of punishment   awarded   by   the   competent   authority   that   too   after assigning cogent reasons. 24. The principles have been culled out by a three­Judge Bench of this   Court   way   back   in   B.C.   Chaturvedi   vs.   Union   of   India   and Others 2    wherein it was observed as under:­ “ 18 . A review  of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary   authority,   and   on   appeal   the   appellate   authority, being   fact­finding   authorities   have   exclusive   power   to   consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view   the   magnitude   or   gravity   of   the   misconduct.   The   High Court/Tribunal,   while   exercising   the   power   of   judicial   review, cannot   normally   substitute   its   own   conclusion   on   penalty   and impose   some   other   penalty.   If   the   punishment   imposed   by   the disciplinary   authority   or   the   appellate   authority   shocks   the conscience   of   the   High   Court/Tribunal,   it   would   appropriately mould   the   relief,   either   directing   the   disciplinary/appellate authority   to   reconsider   the   penalty   imposed,   or   to   shorten   the litigation,   it   may   itself,   in   exceptional   and   rare   cases,   impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.”  25. It   has   been   further   examined   by   this   Court   in   Lucknow Kshetriya   Gramin   Bank   (Now   Allahabad,   Uttar   Pradesh Gramin Bank) and Another vs. Rajendra Singh 3    as under:­ “19.   The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarised as follows: 2 1995(6) SCC 749 3 (2013) 12 SCC 372 17 19.1.   When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the   quantum   of   punishment   to   be   imposed   in   a   particular case   is   essentially   the   domain   of   the   departmental authorities. 19.2.   The   courts   cannot   assume   the   function   of disciplinary/departmental   authorities   and   to   decide   the quantum   of   punishment   and   nature   of   penalty   to   be awarded,   as   this   function   is   exclusively   within   the jurisdiction of the competent authority. 19.3.   Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment   imposed   by   the   disciplinary   authority,   only   in cases   where   such   penalty   is   found   to   be   shocking   to   the conscience of the court. 19.4.   Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as   shockingly   disproportionate   to   the   nature   of   charges framed   against   the   delinquent   employee,   the   appropriate course   of   action   is   to   remit   the   matter   back   to   the disciplinary   authority   or   the   appellate   authority   with direction   to   pass   appropriate   order   of   penalty.   The   court   by itself   cannot   mandate   as   to   what   should   be   the   penalty   in such a case. 19.5.   The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above,   would   be   in   those   cases   where   the   co­delinquent   is awarded   lesser   punishment   by   the   disciplinary   authority even   when   the   charges   of   misconduct   were   identical   or   the co­delinquent   was   foisted   with   more   serious   charges.   This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee   concerned   and   the   co­delinquent   are   equally placed.   However,   there   has   to   be   a   complete   parity   between the   two,   not   only   in   respect   of   nature   of   charge   but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge­sheet in   the   two   cases.   If   the   co­delinquent   accepts   the   charges, indicating   remorse   with   unqualified   apology,   lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.” 18 26. Adverting   to   the   facts   of   the   instant   case,   the   High   Court,   in our considered view, fell in error in interfering with the punishment, which could lawfully be imposed by the departmental authorities for his proven misconduct.  The High Court should not have substituted its  own  discretion   for  that  of  the  authority.    What   punishment  was required to be imposed, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was   a   matter   which   fell   exclusively   within   the   jurisdiction   of   the competent authority and the interference made by the High Court is in   a   cavalier   manner   while   recording   the   finding   of   penalty   to   be disproportionate   without   taking   into   consideration   the   seriousness of   the   misconduct   committed   by   the   respondent   which   is unpardonable and not sustainable in law. 27. Before   we   may   conclude,   we   would   like   to   observe   that   the employees   who   are   in   civil   services,   their   disciplinary   matters   are being   governed   by   their   respective   services   (classification,   control and   appeal)  rules  and   for   the   sake   of  instance,  we  take   note   of  the Central   Civil   Services   (Classification,   Control   and   Appeal)   Rules, 1965(hereinafter being referred to as the “Rules 1965”).   The nature of   penalties   has   been   provided   under   Part   V   and   removal   and 19 dismissal from service are in the category of “Major penalties”.  If the misconduct is found proved, looking into the gravity and the nature of   misconduct,   either   of   the   punishment,   i.e.,   removal   or   dismissal from   service,   could   be   inflicted   upon   the   civil   servant   after   holding disciplinary   enquiry   for   imposing   major   penalties   if   held   guilty   as provided   under   Part   IV   of   the   Rules   1965   and   this   what   being ordinarily   understood.     The   following   penalties   under   scheme   of Rules 1965 may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided can be imposed on a Government servant namely:­ “Minor penalties (i) Censure; (ii) .. (iii) … (iiia)… (iv) withholding of increments of pay; Major penalties: (v) … (vi) … (vii) Compulsory retirement; (viii) Removal   from   service,   which   shall   not   be   a   disqualification   for future employment under the Government; (ix) Dismissal   from   service   which   shall   ordinarily   be   a   disqualification for future employment under the Government. ….” 28. In the instant case, the disciplinary matters of members of the force for minor punishments are being governed under Section 11 of 20 the Act 1949 and if any nature of more heinous offence/less heinous offence being committed, if found proved, member of the force shall be   punishable   for   imprisonment   for   a   specified   term   as   being referred   to   under   Section   9   and   Section   10   of   the   Act   1949   and   at the   same   time,   dismissal   and   removal   from   service   are   being considered   to   be   the   minor   punishments   as   reflected   from   Section 11(1)   of   the   Act   1949.     If   the   allegation   is   found   proved,   the competent   authority   may   award   in   lieu   of,   or   in   addition   to, suspension   or   dismissal   any   one   or   more   of   punishments   to   a member of the force whom he considers to be guilty of disobedience, neglect   or   duty,   or   remissness   in   the   discharge   of   any   duty   or   of other misconduct with confinement in the quarter­guard or removal as   indicated   under   clauses   (d)   and   (e)   of   Section   11(1)   of   the   Act 1949. 29. The scheme of the Act 1949 of which reference has been made was   completely   overlooked   by   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   and   while keeping   in   mind   the   standards   of   examining   the   misconduct   of   a civil   servant,   interference   has   been   made   in   the   quantum   of punishment which may not apply to member  of the discipline force 21 and,   in   our   considered   view,   the   interference   made   by   the   High Court   in   substituting   punishment   in   the   instant   case   is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 30. Consequently,   the   appeal   succeeds   and   is   allowed.     The impugned  judgment  of the High Court of Delhi dated 11 th   February 2016 is quashed and set aside.  No costs. 31. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ………………………J. (AJAY RASTOGI) ……………………….J. (ABHAY S. OKA) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 11, 2021 22