Holding

Rule 27's provision for compulsory retirement is intra vires the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and the punishment imposed on the respondent is valid.

Summary

The respondent, a Head Constable in the CRPF, was found guilty of assaulting a colleague and was compulsorily retired under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. He challenged the retirement, arguing that Rule 27's provision of compulsory retirement was ultra vires Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949, and that the punishment was disproportionate. The Supreme Court examined the scope of the Central Government's rule‑making power under Section 18 of the Act and the phrase "subject to any rules made under this Act" in Section 11. It held that the legislature intended the rules to supplement the Act and that compulsory retirement is a permissible minor punishment within the Central Government's authority. The Court found no procedural infirmity or disproportionality in the disciplinary enquiry. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court order set aside, and the compulsory retirement upheld.

Issues considered

Whether compulsory retirement could be imposed on the respondent by relying on Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules.
Whether Rule 27, to the extent it provides punishments other than those specified in Section 11 of the CRPF Act, is ultra vires the Act.
Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement suffers from procedural infirmity or is shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct.

Legislation cited

Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949s. 10, s. 11, s. 18, s. 8, s. 9

Subjects

Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)Head ConstableAssaultCompulsory retirementMinor punishmentsRule‑making powerSection 11 CRPF ActSection 18 CRPF ActDisciplinary controlUltra viresIntra viresProcedural fairnessDisproportionate punishment

Judgment

[2024] 6 S.C.R. 429 : 2024 INSC 392

Union of India & Ors.
v.
Santosh Kumar Tiwari
(Civil Appeal No. 6135 of 2024)
08 May 2024
[Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J. B. Pardiwala and
Manoj Misra,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955
to the extent it provides for punishments other than those specified
in Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, is
ultra vires the CRPF Act and as such inoperable and void; whether
the punishment of compulsory retirement from service could have
been imposed upon the respondent (a Head Constable in CRPF)
by relying upon the provisions of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules;
whether the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed suffers
from any procedural infirmity and / or is shockingly disproportionate
to the proven misconduct of the respondent.

Headnotes†
Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 – Rule 27 – Central
Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 – Section 11 – Punishment
of compulsory retirement prescribed in Rule 27, if ultra vires
the CRPF Act:
Held: The rule-making power of the Central Government found
in Section 18 is in broad terms – The Central Government is not
only empowered to make rules for regulating the award of minor
punishment under Section 11 but also to carry out the purposes
of the Act which includes superintendence of, and control over,
the Force as well as its administration – The delegate cannot
override the Act either by exceeding the authority or by making
provisions inconsistent with the Act however, when the enabling
Act itself permits its modification by rules, the rules made prevail
over the provision in the Act – While enacting the CRPF Act
the legislative intent was not to declare that only those minor
punishments could be imposed as are specified in Section
11 of the CRPF Act – Rather, it was left open for the Central
Government to frame rules to carry out the purposes of the Act
* Author
430 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

and the punishments imposable were subject to the rules framed
under the Act – Section 8 vests the superintendence and control
over the Force in the Central Government – ‘Control’ is a word
of wide amplitude and includes disciplinary control – Therefore,
if the CRPF Act envisages vesting of control over the Force in
the Central Government and the various punishments imposable
under Section 11 are subject to the rules made under the Act, the
Central Government in exercise of its general rule-making power,
to ensure full and effective control over the Force, can prescribe
punishments other than those specified in that section, including the
punishment of compulsory retirement – To keep the Force efficient,
weeding out undesirable elements therefrom is essential and is
a facet of control over the Force, which the Central Government
has over the Force by virtue of Section 8 of the CRPF Act – Thus,
to ensure effective control over the Force, if rules are framed, in
exercise of general rule-making power, prescribing the punishment
of compulsory retirement, the same cannot be said to be ultra vires
Section 11 of the CRPF Act, particularly when sub-section (1) of
Section 11 clearly mentions that the power exercisable therein
is subject to any rules made under the Act – The punishment of
compulsory retirement prescribed by Rule 27 is intra vires the
CRPF Act and is one of the punishments imposable – In the
present case, respondent was part of a disciplined force and was
found guilty of assaulting his colleague – Punishment awarded not
shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct – Rather,
considering his past service, already a sympathetic view was
taken in the matter and no further latitude needs be shown – The
punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to the respondent
is affirmed – Impugned order of the High Court set aside. [Paras
17, 29, 30-32, 35, 36]
Service Law – Service jurisprudence – Punishments –
Compulsory retirement:
Held: Ordinarily a person in service cannot be visited with a
punishment not specified in the contract of service or the law
governing such service – Punishments may be specified either in
the contract of service or in the Act or the rules governing such
service – Compulsory retirement is a well-accepted method of
removing dead wood from the cadre without affecting his entitlement
for retirement benefits, if otherwise payable – It is another form
of terminating the service without affecting retirement benefits –
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 431

Union of India & Ors. v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari

Ordinarily, compulsory retirement is not considered a punishment
– But if the service rules permit it to be imposed by way of a
punishment, subject to an enquiry, so be it. [Paras 18, 33]
Interpretation of Statutes – Central Reserve Police Force Act,
1949 – ss.11, 9, 10 – “subject to”:
Held: As regards Section 11 being exhaustive of the minor
punishments which could be imposed, the intention of the legislature
appears to the contrary – Section 11 expressly uses the phrase
“subject to any rules made under this Act” before “award in lieu of,
or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more of the
following punishments” – While prescribing punishment for “more
heinous offences” and “less heinous offences” in Sections 9 and
10 respectively, the phrase “subject to any rules made under this
Act” is not used – The expression “subject to” conveys the idea of
a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions
subject to which it is made. [Para 28]
Administrative Law – Delegate’s power to make rules:
Held: The intention of the legislature, as indicated in the enabling
Act, must be the prime guide to the extent of delegate’s power
to make rules – However, the delegate must not travel wider
than the object of the legislature rather it must remain true to
it. [Para 24]
Words and Phrases – ‘control’ – Concept and import of –
Discussed – Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.

Case Law Cited
State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi [1966]
1 SCR 771 : AIR 1966 SC 447 – followed.
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Lakhwinder Kumar and
Ors. [2013] 2 SCR 1070 : (2013) 6 SCC 333; St. Johns
Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, National
Council for Teacher Education and Anr. [2003] 1 SCR
975 : (2003) 3 SCC 321; Madan Mohan Choudhary
v. State of Bihar & Ors. [1999] 1 SCR 596 : (1999) 3
SCC 396 – relied on.
Union of India & Ors. v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat [2005]
Supp. 4 SCR 367 : (2005) 13 SCC 228; Union of
India & Ors. v. Diler Singh [2016] 4 SCR 473 : (2016)
432 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

13 SCC 71; General Officer Commanding-in-Chief &
Anr. v. Subash Chandra Yadav & Anr. [1988] 3 SCR
62 : (1988) 2 SCC 351; State Bank of India and Ors.
v. T.J. Paul [1999] 2 SCR 1060 : (1999) 4 SCC 759;
Rohtak & Hissar Districts Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v.
State of U.P. & Ors. [1966] 2 SCR 863 : AIR 1966 SC
1471; Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman,
Bihar Legislative Council & Ors. [2004] Supp. 5 SCR
692 : (2004) 8 SCC 747; Southern Petrochemical
Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector & ETIO [2007]
6 SCR 955 : (2007) 5 SCC 447; Prasar Bharti & Ors.
v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. [2007] 2 SCR 160 : (2007) 9
SCC 539 – referred to.

Books and Periodicals Cited
“Principles of Statutory Interpretation” by G.P. Singh
(13th Edition, Chapter 12 at page 1019, published
by LexisNexis); P. Ramanatha Aiyer’s Advanced Law
Lexicon 4th Edition Vol.4 at page 4640; Statutory
Interpretation (Fifth Edition, page 262, Section 69) by
Francis Bennion – referred to.

List of Acts
Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949; Central Reserve Police
Force Rules, 1955.

List of Keywords
Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF); Head Constable in CRPF;
Assaulting and abusing fellow colleague; Charges proved;
Departmental enquiry; Suspension; Dismissal; Punishments; Minor
punishments; Major punishments; More heinous offences; Less
heinous offences; Punishment of imprisonment/fine; Disciplinary
action; Dismissal from service; Removal from service; Delinquent
employee; Award of punishment; Compulsory retirement;
Punishment of compulsory retirement from service; Non-gazetted
officer; Departmental appeal; Misconduct; Proven misconduct; Rule
making power of Central Government; Purpose of the Act; Intention
of the legislature; Commandant; Competent authority; Delegate;
Delegate’s power to make rules; Rules prevail over the provision in
the Act; Control; Control over the Force; Disciplinary control; Central
Government; ultra vires the CRPF Act; intra vires the CRPF Act.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 433

Union of India & Ors. v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6135 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2020 of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack in WA No. 435 of 2020
Appearances for Parties
Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., R Bala, Sr. Adv., Navanjay Mahapatra,
Ms. Seema Bengani, Ms. Shagun Thakur, Arvind Kumar Sharma,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Anand Shankar, Arvind Wishwabandhu, Arun Kumar Arunchal, Advs.
for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Manoj Misra, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against the judgment and order of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack1 dated 10.12.2020, whereby the Writ Appeal
No. 435/2020, preferred by the appellants against the judgment
and order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.01.2020, has
been dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge has
been affirmed.
Factual Matrix
3. The respondent2 was a Head Constable in Central Reserve Police
Force3. He was charge-sheeted on allegations of assaulting and
abusing his fellow colleague. In the ensuing enquiry, the charges
were found proved against the respondent. As a result thereof, the
respondent was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated
16.02.2006. Aggrieved therewith, the respondent filed a departmental
appeal, which was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General (P),
CRPF vide order dated 28.07.2006.

1 High Court
2 The original petitioner
3 CRPF
434 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

4. Assailing the order of compulsory retirement and dismissal of his
appeal, the respondent filed a Writ Petition (C) No.17398/2006 before
a Single Judge Bench of the High Court. The learned Single Judge
vide order dated 14.01.2020 allowed the writ petition, inter alia, on
the ground that the punishment of compulsory retirement was not
one of the punishments specified in Section 11 (1) of the Central
Reserve Police Force Act, 19494. The operative portion of the order
of the learned Single Judge is extracted below:
“Thus, this court is of the opinion that the award of
punishment by the order vide Annexure 5 not only remains
bad, but in the circumstances, the consequential order
vide Annexure 7 also becomes bad. In such view of the
matter and as the Disciplinary Authority is to reconsider the
question of punishment, this matter is relegated back to the
Disciplinary Authority to hear the question of punishment,
giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass
the final order involving the disciplinary proceeding. For a
remand of the matter to the Disciplinary Authority, this court
observes, the Disciplinary Authority, while reconsidering
the matter will also consider other grounds raised herein.
For the setting aside of the order vide Annexure 5 and as
the matter is relegated back to the authority, the position
of the petitioner before passing of the final order shall be
restored and for interference of this court with the order vide
Annexures 5 and 7 release of the arrears, if any, involving
the petitioner shall be dependent on the ultimate outcome
involving fresh disposal of the proceeding by the Disciplinary
Authority in terms of the directions of the apex court in
paragraph 24 of the judgement in the case of Ranjit Singh
versus Union of India as reported in (2006) 4 SCC 153.”
5. Aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants
preferred writ appeal (supra) before the Division Bench of the High
Court, inter alia, on the following grounds:
(i) The charges against the respondent were found proved in the
enquiry. They were of serious nature warranting penalty including
that of dismissal or removal from service. Compulsory retirement

4 CRPF Act
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 435

Union of India & Ors. v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari

is nothing but a species of removal from service and, therefore,
being a lesser penalty than dismissal or removal from service,
was an imposable punishment.
(ii) Section 11 of the CRPF Act provides that, subject to the
rules made under the Act, the Commandant or any other
authority or officer, as may be prescribed, award in lieu of, or
in addition to, suspension or dismissal, anyone or more of the
punishments specified therein 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. Sub-section (1) of
Section 18 empowers the Central Government to notify rules
for carrying out the purposes of the CRPF Act. Sub-section (2)
of Section 18 provides that without prejudice to the generality
of the foregoing power, rules may provide for all or any of the
matters specified therein, which includes regulating the award of
minor punishment under Section 11, and providing for appeals
from, or the revision of, orders under that section, or remission
of fines imposed under that section. Rule 27 of the Central
Reserve Police Force Rules, 19555, specifies the procedure for
the award of punishments. Clause (a) of Rule 27 enumerates
in a tabular form the punishments which could be imposed
and the authority competent to impose such punishments. At
serial no.4, under column no.2, in the table, the punishment
of compulsory retirement is mentioned as being one of the
punishments that may be imposed by the Commandant after
a formal departmental enquiry. Thus, in light of the provisions
of Section 11 of the CRPF Act read with Rule 27 of the CRPF
Rules, and by taking into consideration that charges were duly
proved in the enquiry, the punishment of compulsory retirement
was fully justified.
6. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, found no merit in
the writ appeal and dismissed the same accordingly.
7. In these circumstances, the appellants are before this Court
questioning the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.

5 CRPF Rules
436 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

8. We have heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor
General, appearing for the appellants, and Mr. Anand Shankar,
learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants
9. Ms. Bhati, learned counsel for the appellants, inter alia, submitted:
(i) The only ground pressed by the original petitioner was that
the punishment of compulsory retirement is not imposable as
it is not provided for in Section 11 of the CRPF Act, which is
nothing but misconceived;
(ii) The High Court while accepting the above ground failed to
consider:
(a) Section 116 of the CRPF Act is expressly made subject
to any rules made under the Act. Section 187 of the

6 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 quarter-guard 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.
(2) Any punishment specified in clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) may be awarded by any
gazetted officer when in command of any detachment of the Force away from headquarters,
provided he is specially authorised in this behalf by the commandant.
(3) The Assistant Commandant, a company officer or a subordinate officer, not being below the
rank of subedar or inspector, commanding a separate detachment or an outpost, or in temporary
command at the headquarters of the Force, may, without a formal trial, award to any member of the
Force who is for the time being subject to his authority any one or more of the following punishment
for the commission of any petty offence against discipline which is not otherwise provided for in this
Act, or which is not of a sufficiently serious nature to require prosecution before a criminal court,
that is to say,—
(a) confinement for not more than seven days in the quarter-guard or such other place as may
be considered suitable, with forfeiture of all pay and allowances during its continuance;
(b) punishment drill, or extra guard, fatigue or other duty, for not more than thirty days with or
without confinement to quarters, lines or camp;
(c) censure or severe censure:
Provided that this punishment may be awarded to a subordinate officer only by the Commandant.
(4) A jemadar or sub-inspector who is temporarily in command of a detachment or an outpost may, in
like manner and for the commission of any like offence, award to any member of the Force for the
time being subject to his authority any of the punishments specified in clause (b) of sub-section (3)
for not more than fifteen days.
7 18. Power to make rules: -
1) The Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the
purposes of this Act.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 437

Union of India & Ors. v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari

CRPF Act empowered the Central Government to make
rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and without
prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, rules
could be made regulating the award of punishment under
Section 11. CRPF Rules, 1955 were notified by the Central
Government. Rule 278 specifically provided for compulsory
retirement as one of the punishments imposable on a non-
gazetted officer, like the respondent. Thus, the impugned
order of the High Court is in ignorance of the relevant
provisions of the Act as well as the rules.
(b) Section 11 empowers the Commandant or any other
competent authority to award in lieu of, or in addition to,
suspension or dismissal anyone or more of the specified
punishments. The specified punishments include removal
from any office of distinction or special emolument in the
Force. Dismissal is the highest of those punishments.
Removal is a lesser punishment. Section 11 uses the
word removal as an expression of wide amplitude so as to
include any punishment that has the effect of terminating
the service. As compulsory retirement also entails in

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide
for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
(a) regulating the classes and grades of, and the pay, pension and other remuneration of,
member of the force, and their conditions of service in the force;
(b) regulating the powers and duties of officers authorized to exercise any function by or under
this Act;
(c) fixing the period of service for members of the force;
(d) regulating the award of minor punishment under section 11, and providing for appeals from,
or the revision of, orders under that section, or the remission of fines imposed under that
section, and the remission of deductions made under section 13;
(e) regulating the several or collective liability of member of the force in the case of the loss or
theft of weapons and ammunition;
(f) for the disposal of criminal cases arising under this Act and for specifying the prison in which
a person convicted in any such case may be confined.
(3) Every rule made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each
House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised
in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session
immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in
making any modification in the rule, or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the
rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the cases may be;
so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of
anything previously done under that rule.
8 27. Procedure for the award of punishments —
(a) [The punishments shown as items 1 to 11 in column 2 of the table] below may be inflicted on non--
Gazetted 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
438 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

SI. Punishment Subedar Sub Others Consts. Remarks
No. (inspector) Inspector except &
Const. & enrolled
enrolled followers
followers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Dismissal or removal from DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt.
the Force
2. Reduction to a lower time- DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt.
scale of pay or service
To be inflicted
3. Reduction to a lower DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt. after formal
stage in the time-scale of departmental
pay for a specified period enquiry

4. Compulsory retirement DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt.
5. Fine of any amount not DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt.
exceeding one month’s
pay and allowances
6. Confinement in the - - - Comdt.
Quarter Guard exceeding
seven days but not
more than twenty eight
days with or without
punishment drill or extra
guard fatigue or other duty

7. Stoppage of increment DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt.

8.. Removal from any office DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt. May be
of distinction or special inflicted
emolument in the Force without
a formal
departmental
enquiry

9. Censure Comdt. Comdt. Asstt. A.
Comdt. Comdt.
or Coy or Coy
Comdr. Comdr.

10. Confinement to quarter - - - Comdt.
Guard for not more than
seven days with or without
punishment or extra guard
fatigue or other duty

11. Confinement to quarters - - - Comdt.
lines, camp, punishment,
drill, fatigue duties, etc.,
for a term not exceeding
one month

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.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 439

Union of India & Ors. v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari

termination of service, it is nothing but a species of removal,
which is permissible under the CRPF Rules. Therefore,
once an enquiry is held, charge of gross indiscipline is
found proved, bearing in mind that the original petitioner
was a member of a disciplined force, the punishment
awarded, being one of the punishments imposable, was
not liable to be interfered with by the High Court.
10. In support of her submissions, Ms. Bhati relied on two decisions of
this Court, namely, (a) Union of India & Ors. v. Ghulam Mohd.
Bhat9; and (b) Union of India & Ors. v. Diler Singh10.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent
11. Mr. Anand Shankar, learned counsel for the respondent, defending
the impugned order submitted:
(i) Punishment of compulsory retirement as specified in Rule 27
of the CRPF Rules is ultra vires the provisions of Section 11 of
the CRPF Act, which is exhaustive, and no punishment beyond
what is specified therein can be imposed;
(ii) Decision of this Court in Ghulam Mohd. Bhat (supra) is of no
help to the appellants as it relates to the punishment of removal
from service and not compulsory retirement from service;
(iii) Rule 27 was framed in exercise of power delegated to the
Central Government under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of
Section 18 of the CRPF Act, which is only to regulate the
award of minor punishment not to introduce any other species
/ kind of punishment. Therefore, a punishment which is not
contemplated under the statute cannot be introduced by way
of a rule, particularly in absence of specific delegation of
power in this regard. Dismissal and compulsory retirement are
two different kinds of punishment and cannot be treated as
interchangeable. Thus, in absence of any delegation of power

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.
9 [2005] Supp. 4 SCR 367 : (2005) 13 SCC 228
10 (2016) 13 SCC 71
440 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

to frame rules introducing a new punishment, Rule 27, to the
extent it introduces the punishment of compulsory retirement,
is ultra vires the CRPF Act;
(iv) The charge levelled on the original petitioner was not established,
as no eye-witness was presented to prove it. Otherwise also,
Hawaldar M. Devnath, who was allegedly assaulted by the
original petitioner, was inimical to the original petitioner and
made a false complaint. The Disciplinary Authority and the
Appellate Authority acted in a mechanical manner.
12. In support of his submissions, Mr. Anand Shankar relied on a decision
of this Court in General Officer Commanding-in-Chief & Anr. v.
Subash Chandra Yadav & Anr11.
Issues
13. Having taken note of the rival submissions, the issues that arise for
our consideration in this appeal are as follows:
(i) Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement from service
could have been imposed upon the respondent by relying upon
the provisions of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules?
(ii) Whether Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules to the extent it provides
for punishments other than those specified in Section 11 of the
CRPF Act, ultra vires the CRPF Act and as such inoperable
and void?
(iii) Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed
upon the respondent suffers from any procedural infirmity and
/ or is shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct of
the respondent?
An Overview of the CRPF Act and the Rules
14. Before we address the above issues it would be useful to have
an overview of the relevant provisions of the CRPF Act and the
rules made thereunder. The CRPF Act is “an Act to provide for the
constitution and regulation of an armed Central Reserve Police
Force (for short the Force)”. Section 3 provides for constitution of

11 [1988] 3 SCR 62 : (1988) 2 SCC 351
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 441

Union of India & Ors. v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari

the Force. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 provides that the Force
shall be constituted in such manner, and the members of the Force
shall receive such pay, pension and other remuneration, as may
be prescribed. The word “prescribed” is defined in Section 2 (f)
as prescribed by rules made under the Act. Section 812 vests the
superintendence, control and administration of the Force in the
Central Government. It declares that the Force shall be administered
by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of the
Act and of any rules made thereunder, through such officers as the
Central Government may from time to time appoint in that behalf.
Section 9 enumerates “more heinous offences”, whereas Section 10
enumerates “less heinous offences”, both punishable under the Act.
For “more heinous offences”, the punishment is of transportation for
life or for a term of not less than seven years or with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to 14 years or with fine which may
extend to three months’ pay, or with fine to that extent, in addition
to such sentence of transportation or imprisonment. The punishment
for “less heinous offences” is imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to three months’
pay or with both. Section 11 deals with minor punishments. According
to it, the Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be
prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under the Act, award in
lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal anyone or more
of the punishments specified therein 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. One of the minor punishments
specified in Section 11, other than dismissal or suspension, is “removal
from any office of distinction or special emolument in the Force”.
15. Section 18 confers rule-making power on the Central Government.
Sub-section (1) of Section 18 states that the Central Government

12 Section 8. Superintendence, Control and Administration of the Force.--- ( 1) The superintendence
of, and control over, the Force shall vest in the Central Government; and the Force shall be administered
by the Central Government, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and of any rules made there
under, through such officers as the Central Government may from time to time appoint in this behalf.
(2) The headquarters of the force shall be at Neemuch or at such other place as may from time to time
be specified by the Central Government.
(3) While on active duty outside its headquarters, the Force shall be subject to the general control and
direction of such authority or officer as may be prescribed or as may be specially appointed by the
Central Government in this behalf.
442 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out
the purposes of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 18 provides that
without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules
may provide for all or any of the matters specified therein. Amongst
other matters specified therein, clause (d), inter alia, empowers the
Central Government to make rules for regulating the award of minor
punishment under Section 11, and providing for appeals from, or the
revision of, orders under that section.
16. An overview of the CRPF Act would make it clear that the Central
Government has overall superintendence and control over the Force
and the Force is to be administered by the Central Government in
accordance with the provisions of the CRPF Act and of any rules
made thereunder through such officers as the Central Government
may from time to time appoint.
Discussion/ Analysis
17. The rule-making power of the Central Government found in Section
18 is in broad terms. sub-section (1) of Section 18 empowers the
Central Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of
the CRPF Act. Rule-making power under sub-section (2) of Section
18 is without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred
by sub-section (1) thereof. Thus, the Central Government is not
only empowered to make rules for regulating the award of minor
punishment under Section 11 but also to carry out the purposes of
the Act which includes superintendence of, and control over, the
Force as well as its administration.
Punishment of compulsory retirement is intra vires the CRPF Act
18. Ordinarily a person in service cannot be visited with a punishment
not specified in the contract of service or the law governing such
service. Punishments may be specified either in the contract of
service or in the Act or the rules governing such service. In State
Bank of India and Ors. v. T.J. Paul13 this Court had occasion to
deal with a situation where, for a proven charge of gross misconduct,
punishment of removal was not one of the punishments specified
in the extant rules though, punishment of dismissal was imposable.

13 [1999] 2 SCR 1060 : 1999 (4) SCC 759
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 443

Union of India & Ors. v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari

This Court set aside the punishment of removal and remitted the
matter to the Appellate Authority for considering imposition of one
or the other punishment as specified in the extant rules.
19. In the case on hand the CRPF Rules provide for imposition of the
punishment of compulsory retirement though the CRPF Act itself
does not provide for it in specific terms. Therefore, the argument on
behalf of the respondent is that the CRPF Rules are ultra vires the
CRPF Act. In support of this submission reliance has been placed on
a decision of this Court in Subash Chandra Yadav (supra) where
it was observed:
“14……. It is well settled that rules framed under the
provisions of a statute form part of the statute. In other
words, rules have statutory force. But before a rule can
have the effect of a statutory provision, two conditions
must be fulfilled, namely, (1) it must conform to the
provisions of the statute under which it is framed; and
(2) it must also come within the scope and purview
of the rule-making power of the authority framing the
rule. If either of these two conditions is not fulfilled,
the rule so framed would be void.”
(Emphasis supplied)
20. The CRPF Act while dealing with offences and punishments,
categorizes offences in two parts. One “more heinous offences” (vide
Section 9) and the other “less heinous offences” (vide Section 10).
These two categories of offences entail a punishment of imprisonment
and/or fine. The usual disciplinary action which befalls on a delinquent
employee is envisaged as a minor punishment under Section 11
of the CRPF Act even though many of the punishments specified
therein, such as dismissal, reduction in rank and removal from office
of distinction, in common service jurisprudence are considered major
punishment. That apart, Section 11 which describes minor punishments
declares: (a) that the minor punishments specified in Section 11 may
be awarded “in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal”;
and (b) that the power of the Commandant or any other authority or
officer, as may be prescribed, to award the specified punishment “is
subject to any rules made under the CRPF Act”. Another important
feature is that Section 11 does not use common expressions such as
444 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

“dismissal from service” or “removal from service” while describing the
punishments. Though, Rule 27 (vide Table) uses those expressions.
21. The question which would therefore arise for our consideration
is whether Section 11 is exhaustive as far as minor punishments
imposable under the CRPF Act are concerned or it merely provides
for a skeletal framework to be supplemented by the rules framed
under the Act.
22. In Ghulam Mohd. Bhat (supra), a question arose whether punishment
of removal from service could be awarded to a Constable in the
Force. The argument against the award of punishment of removal
from service was that it is not one of the punishments specified in
Section 11 of the CRPF Act. The Union of India defended the said
punishment on the ground that it is a species of dismissal and is
permissible under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules. After examining the
provisions of Section 11 of the CRPF Act and Rule 27 of the CRPF
Rules, this Court observed:
“5. A bare perusal of Section 11 shows that it deals with
minor punishment as compared to the major punishments
prescribed in the preceding section. It lays down that the
Commandant or any other authority or officer, as may
be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under the
Act, award any one or more of the punishments to any
member of the Force who is found guilty of disobedience,
neglect of duty or remissness in the discharge of his duty
or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the
Force. According to the High Court the only punishments
which can be awarded under this section are reduction in
rank, fine, confinement to quarters and removal from any
office of distinction or special emolument in the Force. In
our opinion, the interpretation is not correct, because the
section says that these punishments may be awarded in
lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal.
6. The use of the words “in lieu of, or in addition to,
suspension or dismissal”, appearing in sub-section (1)
of Section 11 before clauses (a) to (e) shows that the
authorities mentioned therein are empowered to award
punishment of dismissal or suspension to the member of
the Force who is found guilty and in addition to, or in lieu
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 445

Union of India & Ors. v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari

thereof, the punishment mentioned in clauses (a) to (e)
may also be awarded.
8. It is fairly well-settled position in law that removal is
a form of dismissal. This Court in Dattatraya Mahadev
Nadkarni (Dr.) v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay
[(1992) 2 SCC 547 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 615 : (1992) 20
ATC 275 : AIR 1992 SC 786] explained that removal and
dismissal from service stand on the same footing and
both bring about termination of service though every
termination of service does not amount to removal or
dismissal. The only difference between the two is that in
the case of dismissal the employee is disqualified from
future employment while in the case of removal he is
not debarred from getting future employment. Therefore,
dismissal has more serious consequences in comparison to
removal. In any event, Section 11(1) refers to the Rules
made under the Act under which action can be taken.
Rule 27 is part of the Rules made under the Act. Rule
27 clearly permits removal by the competent authority.
In the instant case the Commandant who had passed
the order of removal was the competent authority to
pass the order.”
(Emphasis supplied)
23. The learned counsel for the respondent seeks to distinguish the
above decision, inter alia, on the ground that removal may be a
species of dismissal or vice versa but compulsory retirement is not,
because in common service jurisprudence compulsory retirement is
not considered a punishment. Therefore, according to him, Rule 27
prescribes an altogether new punishment which is not contemplated
by the CRPF Act. Hence, according to him, Rule 27 to that extent
is ultra vires the CRPF Act and as such void.
24. To determine whether the punishment of compulsory retirement
prescribed in Rule 27 is ultra vires the CRPF Act, it would be apposite
to first examine the scope of rule-making power conferred on the
Central Government by the statute. The CRPF Act, vide sub-section
(1) of Section 18, grant the power to make rules in general terms,
that is, “to carry out the purposes of this Act”. And, vide sub-section
(2) of Section 18, “in particular and without prejudice to the generality
446 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of the foregoing power”, to make rules for all or any of the matters
enumerated therein. Interpreting such a rule-making provision, in
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Lakhwinder Kumar and Ors.14,
a two-Judge Bench of this Court, relying on a Constitution Bench
decision in Rohtak & Hissar Districts Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v.
State of U.P. & Ors.15, held:
“23. In our opinion, when the power is conferred in
general and thereafter in respect of enumerated matters,
as in the present case, the particularization in respect
of specified subject is construed as merely illustrative
and does not limit the scope of general power. Reference
in this connection can be made to a decision of this Court
in Rohtak and Hissar Districts Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v.
State of UP, in which it has been held as follows:
“18……… Section 15 (1) confers wide powers
on the appropriate government to make rules
to carry out the purposes of the Act; and
Section 15 (2) specifies some of the matters
enumerated by clauses (a) to (e) in respect of
which rules may be framed. It is well settled
that the enumeration of the particular matters
by sub-section (2) will not control or limit the
width of the powers conferred on the appropriate
government by sub-section (1) of Section 15;
and so, if it appears that the item added by
the appropriate government has relation to
conditions of employment, its addition cannot
be challenged as being invalid in law.”
(Emphasis supplied)
This would imply that the intention of the legislature, as indicated in
the enabling Act, must be the prime guide to the extent of delegate’s
power to make rules. However, the delegate must not travel wider
than the object of the legislature rather it must remain true to it16.

14 [2013] 2 SCR 1070 : (2013) 6 SCC 333
15 [1966] 2 SCR 863 : AIR 1966 SC 1471
16 Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council & Ors. : (2004) 8 SCC 747, para 13
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 447

Union of India & Ors. v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari

25. In St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director,
National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.17, a three-Judge
Bench of this Court observed:
“10. …………. The power to make subordinate legislation
is derived from the enabling act and it is fundamental that
the delegate on whom such a power is conferred has to
act within the limits of authority conferred by the Act. Rules
cannot be made to supplant the provisions of the
enabling act but to supplement it. What is permitted
is the delegation of ancillary or subordinate legislative
functions, or, what is fictionally called, a power to fill
up details. The legislature may, after laying down the
legislative policy confer discretion on an administrative
agency as to the execution of the policy and leave it to
the agency to work out the details within the framework
of policy………………..
12. The question whether any particular legislation
suffers from excessive delegation has to be decided
having regard to the subject matter, the scheme, the
provisions of the statute including its preamble and the
facts and circumstances in the background of which
the statute is enacted…….It is also well settled that in
considering the vires of subordinate legislation one
should start with the presumption that it is intra vires
and if it is open to two constructions, one of which
would make it valid and the other invalid, the courts
must adopt that construction which makes it valid
and the legislation can also be read down to avoid
its being declared ultra vires.”
(Emphasis supplied)
26. Francis Bennion in his treatise on Statutory Interpretation (Fifth
Edition, page 262, Section 69) has written:
“There are various types of delegated legislation, but all
are subject to certain fundamental factors. Underlying the
concept of delegated legislation is the basic principle that

17 [2003] 1 SCR 975 : (2003) 3 SCC 321
448 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the legislature delegates because it cannot directly exert
its will in every detail. All it can in practice do is lay down
the outline. This means that the intention of the legislature,
as indicated in the outline (that is the enabling Act), must
be the prime guide to the meaning of delegated legislation
and the extent of the power to make it.”
27. As discussed above, since the rule-making power under Section 18
of the CRPF Act is in broad terms, that is to carry out the purposes
of the Act as well as to regulate the award of minor punishment
under Section 11, in order to determine whether Rule 27 of the CRPF
Rules, insofar as it prescribes an additional punishment of compulsory
retirement, is intra vires or ultra vires the CRPF Act, we would have
to consider: (a) whether the intention of the legislature, as borne out
from the provisions of the CRPF Act, was to leave it open for the
Central Government to prescribe any other minor punishment than
what has already been prescribed in Section 11 of the Act; and (b)
whether it is in conflict with any of the provisions of the CRPF Act.
28. As regards Section 11 being exhaustive of the minor punishments
which could be imposed, the intention of the legislature appears to
the contrary. Section 11 expressly uses the phrase “subject to any
rules made under this Act” before “award in lieu of, or in addition
to, suspension or dismissal any one or more of the following
punishments”. Importantly, while prescribing punishment for “more
heinous offences” and “less heinous offences” in Sections 9 and
10 respectively, the phrase “subject to any rules made under this
Act” is not used. The expression “subject to” conveys the idea of
a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions
subject to which it is made18.
29. G.P. Singh in his treatise “Principles of Statutory Interpretation”
(13th Edition, Chapter 12 at page 1019, published by LexisNexis)
writes: “The delegate cannot override the Act either by exceeding
the authority or by making provisions inconsistent with the Act. But
when the enabling Act itself permits its modification by rules, the
rules made prevail over the provision in the Act. When provision A

18 P. Ramanatha Aiyer’s Advanced Law Lexicon 4th Edition Vol.4 at page 4640, see also Southern
Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector & ETIO : (2007) 5 SCC 447, paragraph 68
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 449

Union of India & Ors. v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari

in the Act is subject to other provisions of the Act, a valid notification
issued under any other provision in the Act would in case of conflict
with section A override its provisions.”
30. In light of the discussion above, we are of the view that while enacting
the CRPF Act the legislative intent was not to declare that only those
minor punishments could be imposed as are specified in Section 11 of
the CRPF Act. Rather, it was left open for the Central Government to
frame rules to carry out the purposes of the Act and the punishments
imposable were subject to the rules framed under the Act.
31. In that context, one of the purposes of the Act could be gathered
from Section 8, which vests the superintendence and control over
the Force in the Central Government. The concept of “control”, as
per P. Ramantha Aiyer’s Advanced Law Lexicon (4th Edition), inter
alia, implies that the controlling authority must be in a position to
dominate the affairs of its subordinate19. In State of West Bengal
v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi20, a Constitution Bench of this Court
had occasion to explore the true import of the expression ‘control’
as used in Article 235 of the Constitution of India. After considering
the submissions, it was held that the word ‘control’ must include
disciplinary jurisdiction. In Madan Mohan Choudhary v. State of
Bihar & Ors.21 it was reiterated that the expression ‘control,’ as
used in Article 235 of the Constitution, includes disciplinary control.
It was also observed that transfers, promotions, and confirmations
including transfer of District Judges or the recall of District Judges
posted on ex-cadre post or on deputation or on administrative post
etc. is also within the administrative control of the High Court. So
also, premature and compulsory retirement is within the control of
the High Court.
32. From above, it is clear that ‘control’ is a word of wide amplitude and
includes disciplinary control. Therefore, in our view, if the CRPF Act
envisages vesting of control over the Force in the Central Government
and the various punishments imposable under Section 11 are subject
to the rules made under the Act, the Central Government in exercise

19 See also Prasar Bharti & Ors. v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors. : (2007) 9 SCC 539, paragraph 20
20 [1966] 1 SCR 771 : AIR 1966 SC 447
21 [1999] 1 SCR 596 : (1999) 3 SCC 396, paragraphs 25 and 26
450 [2024] 6 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of its general rule-making power, to ensure full and effective control
over the Force, can prescribe punishments other than those specified
in that section, including the punishment of compulsory retirement.
33. It cannot be gainsaid that compulsory retirement is a well-accepted
method of removing dead wood from the cadre without affecting his
entitlement for retirement benefits, if otherwise payable. It is another
form of terminating the service without affecting retirement benefits.
Ordinarily, compulsory retirement is not considered a punishment. But
if the service rules permit it to be imposed by way of a punishment,
subject to an enquiry, so be it. To keep the Force efficient, weeding
out undesirable elements therefrom is essential and is a facet of
control over the Force, which the Cen tral Government has over
the Force by virtue of Section 8 of the CRPF Act. Thus, to ensure
effective control over the Force, if rules are framed, in exercise of
general rule-making power, prescribing the punishment of compulsory
retirement, the same cannot be said to be ultra vires Section 11 of
the CRPF Act, particularly when sub-section (1) of Section 11 clearly
mentions that the power exercisable therein is subject to any rules
made under the Act. We, therefore, hold that the punishment of
compulsory retirement prescribed by Rule 27 is intra vires the CRPF
Act and is one of the punishments imposable. Issues (i) and (ii) are
decided in the above terms.
Punishment of compulsory retirement suffers from no other
infirmity.
34. The charge against the respondent has been that on 18.06.2005,
during Forest Camp Training, he abused M. Devnath, Forest Camp
Training Haw/ B.H.M. and assaulted him with a stick. M. Devnath
was medically examined. The medical examination report confirmed
that he suffered injuries. P.K. Sahu (PW-1), who was the Camp
Commander, proved that M. Devnath came to him and complained
to him about being beaten by the respondent. PW-2, G D Bhukara,
initially supported the case against the respondent but during cross-
examination stated that no third person was present during the
incident. PW-3, T.K. Hajra, stated that M. Devnath had complained
to him about the conduct of the respondent, and he could also
notice presence of injuries on his body. Similar is the statement of
PW-4 Heera Lal Yadav. PW-5 Liyakat Ali, stated that he saw them
fighting and saw respondent striking a stick blow to M. Devnath. He
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 451

Union of India & Ors. v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari

also stated that M. Devnath went to his tent saying that he would
commit suicide, though he was rescued. The statement of M. Devnath
(the victim) was also recorded. He supported the charge. After
considering the statement of the witnesses, including the victim, and
perusing the documents, including the medical report, the charges
were found proved. In consequence, after considering the defence
of the respondent and the tenure of his service, the Commandant
imposed punishment of compulsory retirement on the respondent
and preserved his right for pension and gratuity.
35. The learned counsel for the respondent made a feeble attempt to
challenge the finding returned in the enquiry by claiming that the
enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority did not meticulously
consider the respondent’s defence and the weaknesses in the
evidence led against him. To test the above submission, and to find out
whether there is any perversity in the enquiry report, we went through
the materials on record and found that there is no such perversity
in the enquiry report, which is, in fact, founded on the evidence on
record as noticed in the preceding paragraph. Further, no palpable
error in the conduct of the enquiry was brought to our notice. The
punishment awarded is also not shockingly disproportionate to the
proven misconduct. Rather, considering his past service, already a
sympathetic view has been taken in the matter and no further latitude
need be shown to the respondent who was part of a disciplined force
and has been found guilty of assaulting his colleague. Consequently,
we find no good reason to interfere with the punishment awarded
to the respondent.
36. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
order of the High Court is set aside. The writ petition filed by the
respondent (original petitioner) shall stand dismissed. The punishment
of compulsory retirement awarded to the respondent is affirmed.
There is no order as to costs.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey