Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
CONSTABLE SARWAN SINGH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/01/1996
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
SEN, S.C. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (1) 584 1996 SCALE (1)565
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
B.P.JEEVAN REDDY.J.
Leave granted. Heard counsel for both the parties.
This appeal arises from the order of a learned Single
Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the
Second Appeal preferred by the State of Punjab in limine.
The respondent was a police constable. a disciplinary
inquiry was held against him for unauthorised absence from
duty. At the conclusion of the disciplinary inquiry, the
Superintendent of Police, Ropar, gave a notice to the
respondent calling upon him to show-cause why he should not
be dismissed from service. Respondent submitted his reply.
At that stage, it appears, he was transferred from Ropar to
District Sangrur. From District Sangrur he was transferred
to District Patiala. The relevant file relating to
disciplinary proceedings was also transferred to Patiala. On
April 25, 1984 an order was passed dismissing the respondent
from service. The order is signed by "Superintendent of
Police, Patiala". At the foot of the said order, the names
of persons to whom copies of the said order was sent are
mentioned. Thereafter, there is the signature of "Sri
J.P.Virdi, I.P.S., Superintendent of Police, Patiala".
The respondent filed a suit challenging the order of
his dismissal. The Trial Court decreed the suit on the only
ground that the order of dismissal has not been passed by
the Superintendent of Police in-charge of the District but
by Sri J.P.Virdi who was only a Superintendent of Police
(Headquarters). The Trial Court was of the opinion that only
the Superintendent of Police, in-charge of the District is
competent to dismiss a police constable under the relevant
rules. This finding of the Trial Court has been affirmed by
the learned District Judge on appeal. The learned District
Judge observed that Sri J.P.Virdi was not in-charge of the
District at the relevant time and, therefore, not competent
to pass the order of dismissal. The Second Appeal preferred
by the State of Punjab has been dismissed by the High Court
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
in limine, as stated above.
In this appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel
for the State of Punjab that according to the Punjab Police
Rules [Chapter XVI]. constables can be dismissed by one of
the officers mentioned under Column (6) of the table
appended to Rule 16.1. The Officers mentioned under the said
Column are: "Superintendents of Police, Deputy
Superintendent (Administrative), Government Railway Police;
Deputy Superintendents- in-charge of Railway Police Sub-
Divisions; Senior Assistant Superintendent of Police,
Lahore; Officer-in-charge of Recruits Training Centres". The
contention is Column 6 mentions "Superintendents of Police"
[Plural] and, not merely "Superintendent of Police"
[Singular] and, therefore, a Superintendent of Police under
whom the constable [delinquent officer] is working is
competent to dismiss him. It is not necessary, it is
contended, that the Superintendent of Police in-charge of
the district alone should pass such orders. It is submitted
that the respondent has not alleged or established that the
officer who signed the dismissal order - whether Sri
J.P.Virdi or another - was not having control over him. The
burden of establishing that the "Superintendent of Police,
Patiala" who signed the dismissal order has no authority to
do so lay upon him and that he has failed to discharge that
burden. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent relies upon certain decisions of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court holding that only the Superintendent of
Police/Senior Superintendent of Police in-charge of the
district is competent to pass the order of dismissal.
It may be noticed that the order of dismissal is signed
by "Superintendent of Police, Patiala". The officer who
passed the order did not describe himself as "Superintendent
of Police (Headquarters)". Whether that description is not
correct is a question which the High Court ought to have
dealt with. It should also have dealt with the question
whether the order is incompetent, if it has been passed by
the "Superintendent of Police (Headquarters)". It may also
be necessary to find out whether the respondent was posted
in the Headquarters at the time of his dismissal and was he
subordinate to "Superintendent of Police [Headquarters]". It
may also be necessary to deal with the contention of the
State based upon the language employed under Column (6) of
Rule 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules, set out hereinabove.
Since the question arising herein is of general
application, we think it appropriate that the matter is
examined in depth by the High Court. The appeal is
accordingly allowed, the order under appeal is set aside and
the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of
the appeal in accordance with the law and in the light of
the observations contained in this judgment. The High Court
is requested to admit the Second Appeal, give notice to the
respondent and dispose of the appeal on merits. If
necessary, the High Court shall be free to call for such
further evidence as it may think necessary for a just and
proper disposal of the appeal. The High Court may also
consider expeditious disposal of the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.