HARJIT SINGH AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 130

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU

Case summary

HARJIT SINGH AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.pdf

Judgment text

HARJIT SINGH AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. FEBRUARY 23, 2007 [S. B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ. ] Service Law: Punjab Police Manual; Rule 16. 2: Dismissal ofpolice constables from service on ground ofabsence from dutylmisconduct-. Challenged by delinquents-Dismissed by trial Court- Reversed by first appellate Court-Second appeal allowed by High Court- On appeal, Held: All the delinquents absented from duty together-Despite the fact that delinquents might have committed a grave act of misconf!

uct, the law requires the disciplinary authority to arrive at such a finding-· Procedure laid down therefor embodying principles ofnaturaljustice required to be complied with by the authorities-Jn the facts and circumstances ofthe case, ordinarily, the disciplinary authority would have been asked to consider the matter afresh-However, having regard to the lapse of time since their dismissal from service, punishment of compulsory retirement will meet the ends ofjustice-If otherwise eligible, delinquents would be entitled to retiral benefits. Appellants were appointed as Constables in the Police Department of the State of Punjab. They had been put on guard duty in a hospital to keep a watch on a 'convict', an eighty years old man. He was allegedly shackled to the bed. At about 9 p. m. on the intervening night of 19th/20th May, 1984, the appellant-constables were found to be absent by the Inspector of Police.

On enquiries, he came to know that all the three constables were absent from duty from 9 p. m. onwards. They were charge sheeted and a departmental proceedings was initiated against them. The Enquiry Officer found them guilty. The enqu. iry report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary authority having found the cause shown by the deli. nquents to be unsatisfactory, passed orders of dismissal from service against them. Aggrieved, all the three constables filed a suit, whicb was dismissed by the HARJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 131 trial Court. Appeal filed against the order of trial Court was allowed by the ,- Maan Singh v. Union ofIndia & Ors. , [2003] 3 SCC 464]. We are furthermore not oblivious of a decision of this Court in State ofPunjab v. Ram Singh Ex- Constable, [1992] 4 SCC,54 wherein interpreting Rule 16. 2, this Court stated the law in the following terms:- "7. Rule 16. 2(1) consists of two parts.

The first part is referable to gravest acts of misconduct which entails awarding an order of dismissal. Undoubtedly there is distinction between gravest misconduct and grave misconduct. Before awarding an order of dismissal it shall be mandatory that dismissal order should be made only when there are gravest acts of misconduct, since it impinges upon the pensionary rights of the delinquent after putting long length of service. As stated the first part relates to gravest acts of misconduct. Under General Clauses Act singular includes plural, "act" includes acts. The contention that there must be plurality of acts of misconduct to award dismissal is fastidious. The word "acts" would include singular "act" as well. It is not the repetition of the acts complained of but its quality, insidious effect and gravity of situation that ensues from the offending "act". The colour of the gravest act must be gathered from the surrounding or attending circumstances.

Take for instance the delinquent who put in 29 years of continuous length of service and had unblemished record; in thirtieth year he commits defalcation of public money or fabricates false records to conceal misappropriation. He only committed once. Does it men that he should not be inflicted with the punishment of dismissal but be allowed to continue in service for that year to enable him to get his full pension. The answer is obviously no. Therefore, a single act of corruption is sufficient to award an order ofdismissal under the rule as gravest act ofmisconduct. 8. The second part of the rule connotes the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service and that the length of service of the offender and his claim for pension should be taken into account in an appropriate case. The contention that both parts must be read together appears to us to be illogical.

Second part is referable to a misconduct minor in character which does not by itself warrant an order of dismissa[ but due to continued acts of misconduct would have insidious cumulative effect on service morale and may be a ground to take lenient view of giving an opportunity to reform. Despite giving such opportunities if the delinquent officer proved to be incorrigible and found completely unfit to remain in service th~n to maintain disciplii1e in the service, instead of dismissing the delinquent officer, a lesser punishment of j, compulsory retirement or demotion to a lower grade or rank or removal from service without affecting his future chances of re-employment, if any, may meet the ends ofjustice. Take for instance the delinquent officer who is habitually absent from duty when required. Despite giving an opportunity to reform himself he continues to remain absent from duty off and on. He proved himselfto be incorrigible and thereby unfit to continue in service.

Therefore, taking into account his long length of service and his claim for pension he may be compulsorily retired from service so as to enable him to earn proportionate pension. The second part of the rule operates in that area. It may also be made cle'ar that the very order of dismissal from service for gravest misconduct may entail forfeiture of all pensionary benefits. Therefore, the word 'or' cannot be read as "and". It must be disjunctive and independent. The common link that connects both clauses is "the gravest act/acts of misconduct. " {- 15. In the aforementioned situation, ordinarily, we would have asked the Disciplinary Authority to consider the matter afresh, but the occurrence has taken place in the year 1984. Appellants and the said Parminder Singh had worked only for a few years, one of them is dead. In the aforementioned situation, we are of the opinion that we would be justified to fix the quantum of punishment.

We are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case and in particular having regard to the passage of time, punishment of compulsory Retirement will meet the ends of justice. If otherwise eligible, the delinquents would be entitled to retiral benefits. The appet:I is allowed to the aforementioned extent. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order _.. as to costs. S. K. S. Appeal partly allowed.