11 Nov 2021
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2022) 1 SCC 373; 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1041
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2021-0019Panchkula, HaryanaJudgment 11 November 2021
Union of India & Ors. v. CRPF Constable-Driver
The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. On 12 September 2003 the respondent, a CRPF constable-driver attached to the Group Centre and posted at Pinjore, forcibly entered a government doctor chamber demanding attestation of a medical-reimbursement claim and, on refusal, abused and struck the doctor causing facial injury; he then lodged a false complaint alleging the doctor had harassed his wife. Both charges were held proved in a Rule 27 inquiry and removal from service was imposed on 14 July 2004, upheld in departmental appeal and revision. The Delhi High Court upheld the findings but substituted removal with confinement in the quarter-guard plus reinstatement. The Supreme Court held the quantum of punishment lies exclusively with the disciplinary authority, allowed the Union appeal and quashed the High Court judgment, restoring the removal.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 11 November 2021 in Civil Appeal No. 6723 of 2021, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: Ajay Rastogi, Abhay S. Oka, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable-Driver, CRPF, 120 Bn.
- Register number
- HR 03 CW 0005
- Case reference
- Civil Appeal No. 6723 of 2021 / (2022) 1 SCC 373; 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1041
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: Ajay Rastogi, Abhay S. Oka, JJ.), 11 November 2021
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable-Driver, CRPF, 120 Bn
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as removed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949; Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “What punishment was required to be imposed, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was a matter which fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority and the interference made by the High Court is in a cavalier …” (at para 26)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld. Sentence: dismissal.
- Present status of the proceedings
- No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
The Supreme Court of India judgment dated 11 November 2021 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“What punishment was required to be imposed, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was a matter which fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority and the interference made by the High Court is in a cavalier …” (para 26)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.