Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
BISHAN SINGH & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/08/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
and order dated May 7, 1991 of the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana at Chandigarh made in RSA No.2260/80. The admitted
facts are that three appellants along with 27 others had
gone in a procession, in spite of the prohibitory order, to
represent, to the Superintendent of Police at his residence,
their grievance of inadequate accommodation and other
facilities not provided to them. That was done after their
duty was over in the evening. For the making of such
representation and for violating the prohibitory order, an
enquiry was conducted against the three appellants who had
taken initiative and led the procession, making a charge
that they were guilty of grave misconduct under Rule 16 [2]
of the Punjab Police Rules which is held to have been
proved; resultantly, they were dismissed from service. The
order of dismissal was confirmed on appeal. Thereafter, the
appellants filed suit for declaration that the order of
dismissal was null and void and inoperative; the suit was
decreed on April 7, 1979. On appeal, it was dismissed on
February 20, 1980. In the second appeal, the High Court
reversed the decisions and dismissed the suit. Thus this
appeal by special leave.
It is true that the appellants are disciplined members
of the police force. The grievance of inadequate
accommodation provided to them is a legitimate grievance to
be represented to the officer for its redressal. No doubt,
prohibitory order was issued and there is violation thereof;
however, the appellants marched peacefully to make their
representation. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said
that they have committed misconduct warranting extreme
penalty of dismissal from service. Accordingly, the order of
the High Court is set aside. However, the respondents are
directed to impose penalty of stoppage of one increment
without cumulative effect.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellants are
entitled to reinstatement with all the consequential
benefits. No costs.