PRITHIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-2006-10-87
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on October 19,2006

PRITHIPAL SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

BIDHANNAGAR SALT LAKE WELFARE ASSON VS. CENTRAL VALUATION BOARD [LAWS(SC)-2007-5-191] [RELIED ON]
K SRINIVAS VS. GOVERNMENT OF AP [LAWS(APH)-2007-11-98] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI VS. SUDESH PAL RANA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-9-246] [REFERRED TO]
BANWARI LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-11-188] [REFERRED TO]
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ORS. VS. SURINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-157] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. VS. SMT. BITTY KHUSHWAHA AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2011-8-537] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTHERN RAILWAY OFFICER ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2009-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTILAL DNYANU JADHAV VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(BOM)-2010-3-13] [REFERRED TO]
SAROJ AND ORS. VS. THE COMMISSIONER, M.C.D. [LAWS(CA)-2010-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. VS. EX. CONSTABLE YASH PAL SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2011-8-538] [REFERRED TO]
DASHRATH LAL AND ORS. VS. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD [LAWS(DLH)-2015-11-322] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB STATE AND OTHERS VS. ASHOK KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2009-2-234] [REFERRED]
V. SHANMUGAM VS. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (C&I) PUDUCHERRY [LAWS(MAD)-2017-6-85] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHJINDER SINGH VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2019-3-133] [REFERRED TO]
R.S.KADIAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-4-294] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.)Application of the 2nd proviso appended to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India is in question in this appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 24th September, 2002 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 3135 of 1996. The said question arises in the following circumstances:
(2.)Appellant was appointed as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (for short, ASI) on 17.3.1980. He was put on probation. On completion of his period of probation, he was confirmed on 31.3.1989. He was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector on 29.10.1985. While he was discharging his duties in the said capacity, on a charge of grave misconduct that he had let off one smuggler, named, Lakhwinder Singh after accepting money, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. He was dismissed from services by an order dated 7.1.1988 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran. The matter was carried in appeal and the Appellate Authority, being the Deputy Inspector General of Police, set aside the said order of dismissal and directed completion of the disciplinary proceeding, which had already been initiated. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said direction, Appellant was reinstated in service on 4.11.1988 and was posted at Sangrur. The departmental proceeding that followed, the misconduct alleged against Appellant was found to have not been proved. The disciplinary proceeding against Appellant was dropped by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, stating:
On completion of the Departmental Inquiry, the Report was submitted to this Office. I have carefully examined the statements of prosecution witnesses, defence witnesses and the Report of the Inquiry Officer. On the basis of the evidence recorded the allegations leveled against SI Prithipal Singh are not proved because it has not been stated by any witness that SI Prithipal Singh, without registering a case against Lakhwir Singh had let off him after accepting money. Besides this it has been stated by Budha Singh, father of Lakhwir Singh that neither his son was ever arrested by SI Prithipal Singh nor he or his son Lakhwir Singh has ever paid any money to him. After considering the statements of prosecution witnesses, defence witnesses and the Report of the Inquiry Officer, I drop the proceedings against SI Prithipal Singh as the allegations leveled against him are not proved. A copy of this Order be given to him.

(3.)A notice was served upon Appellant purported to be in terms of Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short, the Rules), asking him to show cause as to why the order dated 18.10.1988 passed by the then Deputy Inspector General (DIG, for short), Border Range, Amritsar, setting aside the order of dismissal from service passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran on 7.7.1988, should not be set aside. Appellant filed his show cause, inter alia, stating that there was no valid reason for dispensation of departmental inquiry and once it had been initiated, the same should have been completed. The Director General of Police, however, by an order dated 5.2.1990 set aside the said order dated 18.10.1988 passed by the DIG, Amritsar, opining:
...After due appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any force in the various contentions raised by the S.I. in his written reply. I further find that the impugned order passed by the Sr. Supdt. of Police, Tarn Taran was proper, valid and based on true facts and in accordance with law and did not warrant any interference. The conduct of the S.I. was reprehensible and the holding of departmental enquiry was rightly dispensed with by the competent authority after recording valid reasons therefore. I, therefore, hold that the decision taken by the appellate authority setting aside the impugned order of dismissal passed by the Sr. Supdt. of Police, Tarn Taran is erroneous, unwarranted and deserves to be quashed.

In view of the above discussion, I hereby quash the appellate order dated 18.10.1988 passed by the D.I.G. of Police, Border Range reinstating S.I. Prithipal Singh No. 259/J in service. In consequence the order passed by the Sr. Supdt. of Police, Tarn Taran dated 7.7.1988 is maintained resulting in the dismissal of S.I. Prithipal Singh No. 259/J from service with immediate effect.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.