Judicial Review Limited in Disciplinary Proceedings; High Court's Judgment Overturned
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the dismissal of Pranab Kumar Nath, a constable with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), for entering into a second marriage while his first spouse was still living. The judgment, delivered by Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings and reaffirms the strict enforcement of service rules.
The case arose when Pranab Kumar Nath, employed with CISF, was charged with grave misconduct under Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, 2001, for marrying another woman while his first wife was still alive. This led to his dismissal from service by the disciplinary authority, a decision subsequently confirmed by both the appellate and revisional authorities.
The crux of the legal battle revolved around the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The High Court had earlier intervened, suggesting that dismissal was too harsh a penalty and directed a lesser punishment. However, the Supreme Court has now overturned these judgments, citing precedents that judicial review is not meant to act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters.
The Supreme Court's judgment highlights that such disciplinary rules are designed to uphold the integrity and discipline crucial to the functioning of the CISF, an essential security force. The Court noted that rules prohibiting bigamy among service members are not moral censure but vital service conditions necessary to maintain operational efficacy and discipline.
In its reasoning, the Court referred to several precedents, including cases like B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, reiterating that judicial review should only ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and statutory rules, and not interfere with the merits of the disciplinary authority's decision unless it is arbitrary or capricious.
The Supreme Court emphasized the legal principle "dura lex sed lex," meaning "the law is hard, but it is the law," asserting that the strict application of service rules must be upheld even if the consequences seem harsh. The judgment restores the disciplinary authority's decision, reaffirming the adherence to service rules and procedural propriety.
This judgment serves as a significant precedent, reinforcing the boundaries of judicial intervention in disciplinary proceedings and underscoring the importance of strict adherence to service rules within disciplined forces like the CISF.
Bottom Line:
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice and statutory rules, and cannot act as an appellate authority to reappreciate evidence or substitute its own decision.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Rule 18(b) of CISF Rules, 2001
Union of India v. Pranab Kumar Nath, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2824294
