INSPECTOR PREM CHAND v. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 968

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU

Case summary

INSPECTOR PREM CHAND v. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND OTHERS.pdf

Judgment text

INSPECTOR PREM CHAND ... v. GOVT. OF N. C. T. OF DELHI AND OlliERS APRIL 5, 2007 [S. B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ. ] . ,, Service Law: ~ Disciplinaryproceedings-Misconduct-f! llegations ofdemandfor bribe by Malaria Inspector-Raid constituted-Phenolphthalein powder applied on bribe money-Inspector declined to take tainted money directly-He was acquitted by Criminal Court-Disciplinary proceedings against Appellant Raiding Officer under the Police Rules for not seizing tainted money as case property-He was held guilty ofmisconduct and negligence-Punishment of forfeiture ofone year's approved service imposed-Justification of-Held, not justified-Appellant was not guilty of any willful unlawful behaviour in relation to discharge ofhis duties in service - Act ofomission on his part was • a mere error ofjudgment-Error ofjudgment per se is not a misconduct- Negligence simpliciter also would not be misconduct-Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal), Rules, 1980.

Complaint was filed against a Malaria Inspector of the Municipal Corporation that he was demanding Rs. 3,000/- by way ofillegal gratification. Appellant, posted in the Anti-Corruption Branch as a Raid Officer, constituted a raiding party. The complainant produced a sum ofRs. 3000/- in denomination of Rs. 500/- each in which Phenolphthalein powder was applied but when he attempted to pay the amount to the said Inspector, he did not accept it directly. In criminal proceedings initiated against the said Inspector, the Court record "Misconduct has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition at page 999, thus: 'A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, improper or wrong behaviour, its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or carelessness.

' Misconduct in office has been defined as: "Any unlawful behaviour by a public officer in relation to the duties ofhis office, willful in character. Tenn embraces acts which the officer holder had no right to perfonn, acts perfonned improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act. " I I. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, 3rd edition, at page 3027, the term 'misconduct' has been defined as under: "The term 'misconduct' implies, a wrongful intention, and not a mere error ofjudgment. Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral turpitude. The word 'misconduct' is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scnpe of the Act or statute which is being construed. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct. " [See also Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. T. K. Raju, [2006] 3 SCC I43]. I2.

It is not in dispute that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant in terms ofthe provisions ofthe Delhi Police (Punishment , and Appeal) Rules, I980. It was, therefore, necessary for the disciplinary authority to arrive at a finding of fact that the appellant was guilty of an unlawful behaviour in relation to discharge ofhis duties in service, which was willful in character. No such finding was arrived at. An error ofjudgment, as noticed hereinbefore, per se is not a misconduct. A negligence simpliciter also would not be a misconduct. In Union ofIndia & Ors. v. J. Ahmed, [I979] 2 SCC 286, whereupon Mr. Sharan himself has placed reliance, this Court held so stating: "Code of conduct as set out in the Conduct Rules clearly indicates the conduct expected ofa member of the service. It would follow that conduct which is blameworthy for the Government servant in the context ofConduct Rules would be misconduct.

Ifa servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is misconduct (see Pierce v. Foster, I7 Q. B. 536, 542). A disregard of an essential condition of the contract of service may constitute misconduct [see Laws v. London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers, (1959) I WLR 698. This view was adopted in Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, (61 Born LR 1596), and Satubha K. Vaghela v. Moosa Raza (10 Guj LR 23). The High Court·;·' has noted the definition of misconduct in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary which runs as under: "Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors ofjudgment, or innocent mistake, do nut constitute such misconduct. " [Emphasis supplied] 13. The Tribunal opined that the acts of omission on the part of the appellant was not a mere error ofjudgment. On what premise the said opinion ,. was arrived at is not clear.

We have noticed hereinbefore that the appellate authority, namely, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, while passing the order dated 29. 8. 2003 categorically held that the appellant being a raiding officer should have seized the tainted money as case property. In a given case, what should have been done, is a matter which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down therefor. 14. The Criminal Court admittedly did not pass any adverse remarks against the appellant. Some adverse remarks were passed against the Investigating Officer, who examined himself as PW-4 as he had handed over the tainted money to the complainant PW-2. l 15. A finding of fact was arrived at that the accused did not make deman~ oJ any amount from the complainant and thus no case has been made out against him. This Court in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union ofIndia & Ors.

, [1999] 7 SCC 409, has categorically held: "Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an officer cannot take place on information which is vague or indefinite. Suspicion has no role to play in such matter. There must exist reasonable basis for the disciplinary authority to proceed against the delinquent officer. Merely because penalty was not imposed and the Board in the exercise of its ,. power directed filing of appeal against that order in the Appellate 'T Tribunal could not be enough to prc:iceed against the appellant. There is no other instance to show that in similar case the appellant invariably imposed penalty. " 16. We, therefore, are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant cannot be said to have committed any misconduct. 17. Impugned judgment, therefore, in our opinion cannot be sustained, .... ,. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No costs. BB. B. Appeal allowed.