RISAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2014-5-46
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
May 13,2014
RISAL SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA BISWAROOP CHATTERJEE ACHINTA KUMAR BISWAS NABENDU BOSE LAXMI NARAYAN VS. TULSIRAM PATEL:SADANAND JHA:G P KOUSHAL:UNION OF INDIA:STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]JASWANT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
REENA RANI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SACHIN KUMAR S/O. VEDPAL SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-3-2] [REFERRED TO]G. NARAYAN RAO, S/O. G. ABBAI ACHARI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. CISF QTR.NO.224/C, CISF NEW COMPLEX, VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, UKKUNAGARAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM VS. UNION OF INDIA, REP., BY ITS COMMANDANT, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE CISF UNIT, VISAKHAPATNAM [LAWS(APH)-2016-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
KARAM SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2016-6-150] [REFERRED TO]
HARI NIWAS GUPTA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2019-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
SAMIR KUMAR BEHERA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2024-2-85] [REFERRED TO]
AFJAL KHAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-2-46] [REFERRED TO]
BALWINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2023-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SARAN BANSAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2014-9-29] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. DEBABRATA SINGHA [LAWS(CAL)-2019-11-162] [REFERRED TO]
LOKENDRA PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-343] [REFERRED TO]
MD. MUQADDAR KHAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2021-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
HARI NIWAS GUPTA VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-5-51] [REFERRED TO]
AMITABH PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-128] [REFERRED TO]
TARUN RAJPUT VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-75] [REFERRED TO]
KUSHAL PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-12-89] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT ROY VS. SARDAR VALLABHBHAI NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & 2 [LAWS(GJH)-2015-8-118] [REFERRED]
RAJNISH KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2021-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-2-120] [REFERRED TO]
RAJUMIYA HANIF SAIYED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-9-223] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS VS. RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND ANR [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-237] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR SAHU AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF CHATTISGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2015-11-41] [REFERRED]
T. HOSHELI SEMA VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2019-9-134] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJPAL SINGH VS. DY.INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE INDORE [LAWS(MPH)-2016-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-171] [REFERRED TO]
UMESH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-372] [REFERRED TO]
AMIYA RANJAN MOHANTY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2024-2-124] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2016-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. AMULYA KUMAR CHAMPATIRAY [LAWS(ORI)-2017-1-70] [REFERRED TO]
GURCHARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2016-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
V. SHANMUGAM VS. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (C&I) PUDUCHERRY [LAWS(MAD)-2017-6-85] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMIKANT TIWARI S/O RAMAVTAR TIWARI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2016-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAM GOPAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-375] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)In this appeal, by special leave, the assail is to the defensibility of the judgment and order dated 21.11.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 19816/2008 whereby the Division Bench has concurred with the order of dismissal of the appellant passed by the Government after dispensing with the inquiry as provided under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.
(2.)The broad essential facts which need to be adumbrated for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ad hoc Sub-Inspector) serving in the Department of Police in the State of Haryana, as alleged, was involved in a corruption sting operation in a television channel. Because of the said alleged sting operation, the Superintendent of Police, Mewat at Nuh, vide order dated 19.06.2008, after referring to the news item in the television channel, proceeded to pass the following order:
".....
2. The above said act on the part of above official shows his criminal activities. He being a member of a disciplined force is responsible for protecting the life and property of the citizen of this country, but instead of discharging his duty honestly and sincerely he himself has indulged in criminal activities. As such he has not only tarnished the image of the Haryana Police but also has rudely shaken faith of the citizens of Haryana in the entire Police force, who is supposed to be their protectors. He has acted in a most reprehensible manner. Which is unexpected from a member of disciplined force and undoubtedly extremely prejudicial to the person safety and security of citizen.
3. The involvement of said police official in such a shameful criminal activity has eroded the faith of common people and his continuance in the force is likely to cause further irreparable loss to the functioning and credibility of Haryana Police. The defaulter has acted in a manner highly unbecoming of police official. After such act of serious misconduct. If he is allowed to continue in the Police force, it would be detrimental to public interest.
4. Keeping in view the overall circumstances of above operation, I K.K. Rao, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Mewat at Nuh, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution of India I hereby order the dismissal of SI Rishal Singh No. 133/GGN with immediate effect. A copy of this order be delivered to him free of cost."
(3.)Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred a civil writ petition and the High Court without adverting to the essential contention that no reason had been ascribed for dispensing with the inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) opined that prompt action was required to be taken to avoid spreading of trouble and, therefore, the order passed by the authority was justified.
(2.)The broad essential facts which need to be adumbrated for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ad hoc Sub-Inspector) serving in the Department of Police in the State of Haryana, as alleged, was involved in a corruption sting operation in a television channel. Because of the said alleged sting operation, the Superintendent of Police, Mewat at Nuh, vide order dated 19.06.2008, after referring to the news item in the television channel, proceeded to pass the following order:
".....
2. The above said act on the part of above official shows his criminal activities. He being a member of a disciplined force is responsible for protecting the life and property of the citizen of this country, but instead of discharging his duty honestly and sincerely he himself has indulged in criminal activities. As such he has not only tarnished the image of the Haryana Police but also has rudely shaken faith of the citizens of Haryana in the entire Police force, who is supposed to be their protectors. He has acted in a most reprehensible manner. Which is unexpected from a member of disciplined force and undoubtedly extremely prejudicial to the person safety and security of citizen.
3. The involvement of said police official in such a shameful criminal activity has eroded the faith of common people and his continuance in the force is likely to cause further irreparable loss to the functioning and credibility of Haryana Police. The defaulter has acted in a manner highly unbecoming of police official. After such act of serious misconduct. If he is allowed to continue in the Police force, it would be detrimental to public interest.
4. Keeping in view the overall circumstances of above operation, I K.K. Rao, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Mewat at Nuh, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution of India I hereby order the dismissal of SI Rishal Singh No. 133/GGN with immediate effect. A copy of this order be delivered to him free of cost."
(3.)Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred a civil writ petition and the High Court without adverting to the essential contention that no reason had been ascribed for dispensing with the inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) opined that prompt action was required to be taken to avoid spreading of trouble and, therefore, the order passed by the authority was justified.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.