“Punishment Must Fit Not Merely the Offence, But Also the Offender”— P&H High Court Quashes CRPF Constable’s Dismissal for Sleeping on Duty

“Discipline Is Not Synonymous with Harshness” - Punjab & Haryana High Court striking down the dismissal of a CRPF constable for allegedly sleeping during Magazine Guard Duty. The Court found the punishment “shockingly disproportionate” and held that while discipline is the backbone of any paramilitary force, it “must never become a weapon of harshness”. The ruling sets a precedent for the measured application of disciplinary powers in armed services under constitutional principles.

“Removal from Service for a Single Act of Lapse, Without Security Risk or Malicious Intent, Violates Principles of Fairness and Proportionality”

The Court began its judgment with a central declaration that “discipline, though sacrosanct, is not above the Constitution”. It observed that the petitioner, Constable Sunil Mohite, who had served the CRPF since 1999 and was commended for bravery in 2001, had committed a lapse on 02.02.2014 by failing to report for a second shift of duty at 11 PM, allegedly due to mental stress caused by his mother’s grave illness.

Though the CRPF removed him from service following departmental proceedings under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, the Court held that the action of “visiting him with civil death of removal from service” was entirely disproportionate to the charge of minor misconduct.

“The Power to Punish is Coupled With a Duty to Proportion”—Court Rebukes CRPF for Excessive Penalty

Justice Sandeep Moudgil, authoring the judgment, sharply criticised the CRPF’s disciplinary authorities for imposing a capital punishment (in service terms) for what was essentially a non-malicious, isolated lapse. He noted:

“Though the omission is blameworthy, to extinguish livelihood, erase a career of nearly fifteen years, and disregard a past of acknowledged bravery, is in our opinion, a punishment too disproportionate.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India [(1987) 4 SCC 611], the Court reiterated the principle that “the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh.” It emphasized that “punishment, even within disciplinary frameworks, must obey the constitution.”

“Single Incident Artificially Split Into Two Charges to Magnify Misconduct”—Court Condemns Procedural Manipulation

The Court found that the incident had been deliberately broken into two separate charges—one for absence from duty and another for disobedience of order—although both arose from the same factual occurrence. Such duplication, it held, amounted to “impermissible procedural inflation of the charge to aggravate the punishment”.

Justice Moudgil observed: “This artificial bifurcation unfairly magnifies the misconduct. Law does not permit exaggeration to justify excess.”

He held that this procedural tactic was used to wrongfully elevate a minor misconduct under Section 11(1) into a justification for dismissal, which the statute does not permit.

“Past Commendation Ignored, Prior Penalties Resurrected Without Due Notice”—Court Upholds Article 311 Protections

The Court strongly censured the CRPF for relying upon prior punishments, already suffered by the petitioner, while fixing the punishment—without giving him an opportunity to respond. This, it held, was a direct violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which mandates reasonable opportunity not only to defend the charges but also to contest the proposed punishment.

Relying on State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda, AIR 1964 SC 506, the Court observed: “If the proposed punishment was mainly based upon the previous record... and that was not disclosed in the notice, it would mean that the main reason for the punishment was withheld.”

This non-disclosure, it said, rendered the penalty constitutionally vulnerable.

“Rule of Law Cannot Be Blinded to Human Circumstances”—Court Recognises Mental Distress as Mitigating Factor

Justice Moudgil underlined that justice must be context-sensitive, and cannot be reduced to mechanical application of regulations. He noted that the petitioner had not left the station, there was no breach of armoury security, no allegation of intoxication, and his mother’s critical illness was a documented reality.

The Court ruled: “Justice in the constitutional sense cannot be blind to context. He was not a habitual defaulter; he was a son under emotional distress, found sleeping—not plotting disobedience.”

Court’s Final Verdict: “Dismissal Is Unsustainable in Law and Violates Principles of Proportionality”

Summarising its findings, the Court concluded: “The misconduct stands proved, but the penalty imposed is excessive, unreasonable and unsustainable in law.”

All impugned orders—the dismissal dated 19.06.2014, the appeal rejection dated 26.08.2014, the revision rejection dated 18.12.2014, and the mercy rejection dated 01.05.2015—were quashed, and the writ petition was allowed, effectively reinstating the petitioner.

This decision is a landmark reaffirmation that disciplinary powers in uniformed services are not immune from constitutional scrutiny. The High Court has laid down that “strictness in service cannot override proportionality in punishment”, especially when no security risk or mala fide intention is established.

The ruling re-emphasizes that “all administrative power is subject to the rule of law, and even in disciplinary regimes, fairness is not optional—it is foundational.”

Date of Decision: 26.08.2025