FROM PROTECTOR TO PERPETRATOR: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS DISMISSAL OF ITBP CONSTABLE FOR CASH ROBBERY:

The Supreme Court recently upheld a Para Military Force sentry's dismissal from service as a punishment for robbing a cash box that he was supposed to guard while on duty. "The respondent, was obligated to perform his duties and guard the cash boxes with utmost dedication, honesty, commitment, and discipline. However, contrary to the faith and trust reposed in him by his superiors, he broke open the cash box. He has, therefore, committed robbery of the cash amount, which he was designated to protect.All members of the force must note that there is zero tolerance for such brazen misconduct, where the guardian of the cash box became its looter.In fact, the misconduct proved against the respondent is so grave and alarming that any punishment less than dismissal from service would prove inadequate and insufficient", a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh observed.

The Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the Union challenging the Uttarakhand High Court's direction to the Union Government and the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) to reconsider whether the dismissal of the respondent-officer could be substituted with a lesser punishment. The respondent had been recruited as a Constable in the ITBP in 1990. On the intervening night of 04.07.2005/05.07.2005, while he was on duty as a Sentry, guarding cash boxes containing lakhs of rupees meant for disbursement to Coy personnel, he allegedly broke open the lock of the cash boxes, stole the cash, and absconded from his post.

Following the registration of an FIR, a Court of Enquiry established that the respondent was guilty of the alleged offence. He had also apparently confessed to the crime. Based on the findings of the Summary Force Court, he was dismissed from service on 14.11.2005. After his departmental appeal was rejected, he approached the High Court. A Single Bench of the High Court dismissed the respondent’s claim that his confession was coerced and involuntary. However, it held that the Disciplinary Authority had not applied the principle of proportionality, as it had directly imposed the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. The Single Bench noted that the respondent had accepted his misconduct and cooperated during the disciplinary proceedings, indicating repentance and an attempt at reformation.

Consequently, the bench directed the authorities to "reconsider the quantum of punishment with an open mind." When the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the intra-court appeal filed by the authorities, they approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reiterated that the "doctrine of proportionality is deeply embedded as a part of constitutionalism" and emphasized that the quantum of punishment imposed by a competent authority can be questioned and annulled if the action is "arbitrary, vengeful or so harsh that it pricks the conscience of the Court." However, the Court clarified that the application of this principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

In the present case, the Court took note of the fact that the respondent belonged to a "disciplined Para Military Force" and was posted in a sensitive border area. It observed that the allegations against him were conclusively proved in the Summary Court proceedings, which were based on multiple pieces of evidence, including a confessional statement, the fairness of which was not doubted by the High Court. The Court held that, after returning a finding of guilt in relation to the respondent’s "gross misconduct" involving "moral turpitude", the Disciplinary Authority was under a duty to impose an appropriate punishment. "This duty is amplified, especially in Para Military Forces, where discipline, ethics, loyalty, dedication to service, and reliability are essential to the job", the Court observed.

The Supreme Court also took into account that the respondent had previously been found guilty of minor misconducts on eight separate occasions and had been punished accordingly. In this context, the Court concluded that "the High Court ought not to have exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to compel the Authorities to impose a punishment less than dismissal from service." Accordingly, the appeal filed by the authorities was allowed, and the orders passed by the High Court directing reconsideration of the respondent’s punishment were set aside.