Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1497
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.13402 OF 2015
SAHAB SINGH (D) THROUGH LRs. … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DIRECTOR GENERAL, RPF,
RAIL BHAWAN & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2015 passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition
No.6411 of 2012 by which the writ petition filed by the original
appellant assailing his dismissal from service was itself dismissed
and no relief was granted to him, the present appeal has been
filed before this Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.12.24
12:20:55 IST
Reason:
1
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the instant case are that the
appellant was recruited as a Constable in the Railway Protection
Force (hereinafter, “RPF”) on 01.08.1994. In the year 2006, the
appellant was posted at the Shahdara Post, Delhi.
3. On 13.03.2007, a First Information Report being FIR No.
45/2007 was registered with Police Station Babri, District
Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 363 and 366 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”). The aforesaid FIR
was registered against five persons, including the appellant, his
father, and his brothers, alleging the abduction of a girl. It was
alleged that the appellant’s brother, Rajeev, committed the main
offence, while the appellant was accused of abetting and assisting
him.
4. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Police filed a
charge-sheet dated 06.07.2007 only against the main accused,
Rajeev. However, in the year 2010, acting on an application filed
by the complainant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “CrPC”), the Sessions Court
summoned the appellant. Charges were framed against the
2
appellant on 08.08.2010. Subsequently, due to non-appearance,
non-bailable warrants were issued, and the appellant was taken
into judicial custody on 29.11.2010. He was eventually released
on bail on 01.01.2011.
5. Immediately thereafter, the Respondent-Authorities served
Charge-Sheet dated 12.01.2011 upon the appellant under Rule
153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 alleging: firstly ,
that the appellant concealed facts pertaining to his involvement in
the criminal case, and secondly , he had failed to intimate the
department regarding his arrest and detention.
6. An Inquiry Report dated 10.05.2011 was submitted, which,
inter alia , categorically noted that on the date of the alleged
criminal incident, the appellant was on duty at his post in Delhi.
Notwithstanding this finding, the Senior Circle Security
Commissioner, RPF, Northern Railway, passed an order dated
24.06.2011 dismissing the appellant from service.
7. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the appellant preferred a
Revision Petition, which was dismissed by the Inspector General,
Chief Protection Commissioner on 18.01.2012. Aggrieved, the
3
appellant subsequently preferred an appeal before the Director
General, RPF, which also did not yield any relief. Consequently,
the appellant approached the High Court of Delhi by filing W.P.(C)
No. 6411/2012 on 08.08.2012 seeking reinstatement.
8. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the trial in the
criminal case concluded. By judgment and order dated
16.11.2013 in Session Trial No. 1457/07, the Additional Sessions
Judge, Muzaffarnagar, U.P., acquitted the appellant of all charges
under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the IPC. The Trial Court
specifically observed that on the date of the incident, the
appellant was performing his official duties in Delhi and was not
present at the place of occurrence.
9. Despite the acquittal and the specific finding regarding the
appellant’s plea of alibi, the High Court, vide the impugned
judgment dated 29.07.2015, dismissed the Writ Petition. The
High Court observed that the acquittal was based on technical
considerations and held that the Respondent-Authorities’
decision borne out of appellant’s failure to disclose his detention
and prosecution called for no interference.
4
10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants (legal
representatives of original appellant) and learned ASG for the
respondents. We have perused the material on record including
the impugned order.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
dismissal from service is erroneous on two grounds: firstly, there
was no misconduct whatsoever on the part of the appellant and
therefore, the very initiation of the proceeding against him was an
abuse of the process of law. He therefore submitted that the
entire proceeding, including the order of dismissal, ought to be
quashed. Secondly and alternatively, it was submitted that during
the pendency of this appeal, the appellant died on 03.10.2023 at
the age of 54 years. In the circumstances, the order of dismissal
may at least be converted to one of compulsory retirement as the
appellant is no longer alive to be reinstated and at least his family
may be benefitted monetarily by receiving the arrears of pension
from the date of dismissal as well as family pension from the date
of his demise.
5
12. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
impugned order may be set aside or in the alternative, modified
and relief may be granted to the appellant’s family members who
have been brought on record.
13. Per contra , learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for
the respondents supported the impugned order and contended
that the order of dismissal is not disproportionate; that the
appellant, though having completed approximately seventeen
years of service, was guilty of misconduct which was established
after holding an inquiry; and that the order of dismissal was
affirmed by the appellate authority as well as Revisional authority
and the High Court also did not interfere in the matter. Therefore,
at this stage, merely because the appellant has since passed
away, relief cannot be granted by modifying the order of dismissal
to one of compulsory retirement. Learned ASG submitted that
there is no merit in this appeal and the same may be dismissed.
14. We have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar in
light of the impugned order and the facts of the case. No doubt,
the misconduct has been proved in the disciplinary inquiry which
6
was in the nature of suppression of the fact of his involvement in
a criminal case, and further suppression of his arrest and
detention which he was required to bring to the notice of the
authority under the provisions of the Central Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1964. But the same not having been done, could
not have resulted in dismissal from service. Any other penalty
could have been imposed on the appellant herein. In the
circumstances, we hold that the punishment of dismissal from
service was disproportionate, particularly when the appellant had
already completed approximately seventeen years of service and
was entitled to further career progression and monetary benefits
on his retirement if any other punishment could have been
imposed on him.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that there
was an honourable acquittal in the criminal proceedings which
were instituted against the family members of the deceased.
Therefore, the dismissal from service is all the more injurious to
the appellant and his family.
7
16. We have taken note of the fact that during the pendency of
this appeal, the appellant died on 03.10.2023 and he had the
benefit of an honourable acquittal in the criminal proceedings
which were instituted against him and two other family members.
17. We have found that having regard to the nature of the
imputation against the appellant herein, the dismissal from
service was wholly disproportionate. Hence, the punishment of
dismissal is converted/modified to one of compulsory retirement
with pension payable in accordance with law. Consequently, the
appellant shall, and now his legal representatives shall, with
effect from 24.06.2011 which was the date of dismissal and on
his demise, receive arrears of pension and family pension in
accordance with law.
18. The pensionary benefits shall be computed and the same
shall be released to the legal representatives of the deceased
appellant within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt
of the copy of this judgment.
8
19. The appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms.
…………………………………..J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
…………………………………..J.
(R. MAHADEVAN)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 26, 2025.
9
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.13402 OF 2015
SAHAB SINGH (D) THROUGH LRs. … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DIRECTOR GENERAL, RPF,
RAIL BHAWAN & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2015 passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition
No.6411 of 2012 by which the writ petition filed by the original
appellant assailing his dismissal from service was itself dismissed
and no relief was granted to him, the present appeal has been
filed before this Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.12.24
12:20:55 IST
Reason:
1
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the instant case are that the
appellant was recruited as a Constable in the Railway Protection
Force (hereinafter, “RPF”) on 01.08.1994. In the year 2006, the
appellant was posted at the Shahdara Post, Delhi.
3. On 13.03.2007, a First Information Report being FIR No.
45/2007 was registered with Police Station Babri, District
Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 363 and 366 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”). The aforesaid FIR
was registered against five persons, including the appellant, his
father, and his brothers, alleging the abduction of a girl. It was
alleged that the appellant’s brother, Rajeev, committed the main
offence, while the appellant was accused of abetting and assisting
him.
4. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Police filed a
charge-sheet dated 06.07.2007 only against the main accused,
Rajeev. However, in the year 2010, acting on an application filed
by the complainant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “CrPC”), the Sessions Court
summoned the appellant. Charges were framed against the
2
appellant on 08.08.2010. Subsequently, due to non-appearance,
non-bailable warrants were issued, and the appellant was taken
into judicial custody on 29.11.2010. He was eventually released
on bail on 01.01.2011.
5. Immediately thereafter, the Respondent-Authorities served
Charge-Sheet dated 12.01.2011 upon the appellant under Rule
153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 alleging: firstly ,
that the appellant concealed facts pertaining to his involvement in
the criminal case, and secondly , he had failed to intimate the
department regarding his arrest and detention.
6. An Inquiry Report dated 10.05.2011 was submitted, which,
inter alia , categorically noted that on the date of the alleged
criminal incident, the appellant was on duty at his post in Delhi.
Notwithstanding this finding, the Senior Circle Security
Commissioner, RPF, Northern Railway, passed an order dated
24.06.2011 dismissing the appellant from service.
7. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the appellant preferred a
Revision Petition, which was dismissed by the Inspector General,
Chief Protection Commissioner on 18.01.2012. Aggrieved, the
3
appellant subsequently preferred an appeal before the Director
General, RPF, which also did not yield any relief. Consequently,
the appellant approached the High Court of Delhi by filing W.P.(C)
No. 6411/2012 on 08.08.2012 seeking reinstatement.
8. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the trial in the
criminal case concluded. By judgment and order dated
16.11.2013 in Session Trial No. 1457/07, the Additional Sessions
Judge, Muzaffarnagar, U.P., acquitted the appellant of all charges
under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the IPC. The Trial Court
specifically observed that on the date of the incident, the
appellant was performing his official duties in Delhi and was not
present at the place of occurrence.
9. Despite the acquittal and the specific finding regarding the
appellant’s plea of alibi, the High Court, vide the impugned
judgment dated 29.07.2015, dismissed the Writ Petition. The
High Court observed that the acquittal was based on technical
considerations and held that the Respondent-Authorities’
decision borne out of appellant’s failure to disclose his detention
and prosecution called for no interference.
4
10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants (legal
representatives of original appellant) and learned ASG for the
respondents. We have perused the material on record including
the impugned order.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
dismissal from service is erroneous on two grounds: firstly, there
was no misconduct whatsoever on the part of the appellant and
therefore, the very initiation of the proceeding against him was an
abuse of the process of law. He therefore submitted that the
entire proceeding, including the order of dismissal, ought to be
quashed. Secondly and alternatively, it was submitted that during
the pendency of this appeal, the appellant died on 03.10.2023 at
the age of 54 years. In the circumstances, the order of dismissal
may at least be converted to one of compulsory retirement as the
appellant is no longer alive to be reinstated and at least his family
may be benefitted monetarily by receiving the arrears of pension
from the date of dismissal as well as family pension from the date
of his demise.
5
12. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
impugned order may be set aside or in the alternative, modified
and relief may be granted to the appellant’s family members who
have been brought on record.
13. Per contra , learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for
the respondents supported the impugned order and contended
that the order of dismissal is not disproportionate; that the
appellant, though having completed approximately seventeen
years of service, was guilty of misconduct which was established
after holding an inquiry; and that the order of dismissal was
affirmed by the appellate authority as well as Revisional authority
and the High Court also did not interfere in the matter. Therefore,
at this stage, merely because the appellant has since passed
away, relief cannot be granted by modifying the order of dismissal
to one of compulsory retirement. Learned ASG submitted that
there is no merit in this appeal and the same may be dismissed.
14. We have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar in
light of the impugned order and the facts of the case. No doubt,
the misconduct has been proved in the disciplinary inquiry which
6
was in the nature of suppression of the fact of his involvement in
a criminal case, and further suppression of his arrest and
detention which he was required to bring to the notice of the
authority under the provisions of the Central Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1964. But the same not having been done, could
not have resulted in dismissal from service. Any other penalty
could have been imposed on the appellant herein. In the
circumstances, we hold that the punishment of dismissal from
service was disproportionate, particularly when the appellant had
already completed approximately seventeen years of service and
was entitled to further career progression and monetary benefits
on his retirement if any other punishment could have been
imposed on him.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that there
was an honourable acquittal in the criminal proceedings which
were instituted against the family members of the deceased.
Therefore, the dismissal from service is all the more injurious to
the appellant and his family.
7
16. We have taken note of the fact that during the pendency of
this appeal, the appellant died on 03.10.2023 and he had the
benefit of an honourable acquittal in the criminal proceedings
which were instituted against him and two other family members.
17. We have found that having regard to the nature of the
imputation against the appellant herein, the dismissal from
service was wholly disproportionate. Hence, the punishment of
dismissal is converted/modified to one of compulsory retirement
with pension payable in accordance with law. Consequently, the
appellant shall, and now his legal representatives shall, with
effect from 24.06.2011 which was the date of dismissal and on
his demise, receive arrears of pension and family pension in
accordance with law.
18. The pensionary benefits shall be computed and the same
shall be released to the legal representatives of the deceased
appellant within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt
of the copy of this judgment.
8
19. The appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms.
…………………………………..J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
…………………………………..J.
(R. MAHADEVAN)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 26, 2025.
9