IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5822 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.13753 of 2007

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ...APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

RANBIR SINGH          ...RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Respondent – plaintiff was a Police Constable.  He was dismissed on 5th February,

1998.  Order of dismissal was passed by Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon.  Against the

Order of dismissal, respondent herein filed a Suit for declaration that the Order of dismissal

be declared as null and void.

In the Suit five issues were framed.  We are concerned with Issue No. 2 and Issue

No. 3.

Issue No.2 [as reframed] reads as under:-

“Whether the  dismissal  order  was  null  and  void  for  not

obtaining prior concurrence of the District Magistrate in terms of Rules

16.38  of  PPR  as  applicable  to  the  State  of  Haryana which  is  the

constitutional mandate under Article 311 of the Constitution?

-2-

Issue No.3:

Whether the  plaintiff  is  entitled  to  be  reinstated  with all

service benefits  i.e.  salary and other allowances along with all other

incidental reliefs?”

The  Trial  Court  came to  the  conclusion that  in  the  F.I.R.  No.  11  dated  20th

January,  1997  respondent  was  acquitted.   The  Trial  Court  further  found  that  the

Departmental  Inquiry which  was  simultaneously instituted  on  20th January,  1997,  stood

conducted without concurrence from the District Judge.  Therefore, according to the Trial

Court,  there was failure on the part of  the Department in complying with Rule 16.38  of

Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to the State of Haryana.  We quote hereinbelow the

said Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to the State of Haryana:

“Rule 16.38: Criminal offence by police officers and strictures

by courts –  procedure regarding –(1)  Where a preliminary enquiry or

investigation  into  a complaint  alleging the  commission by  an enrolled

police officer of a criminal offence in connection with his official relations

with the public, establishes a prima facie case, a judicial prosecution shall

normally follow.  Where, however, the Superintendent of Police proposes

to  proceed in the case  departmentally, the concurrence of  the District

Magistrate shall be obtained.

This finding of  the Trial Court on Issue No.  2  has been affirmed by the First

Appellate Court and the High Court.   We see  

-3-

no infirmity as far as this finding goes.   Rule 16.38 proceeds on the basis that where the

judicial prosecution is pending and the Department seeks to hold a Departmental Inquiry

simultaneously,  prior  concurrence  of  the  District  Magistrate  is  required  to  be  taken.

Therefore, all the Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that the Departmental

Inquiry which was conducted was null and void, that it was in the absence of concurrence of

the District Judge.

However, on Issue No. 3 the Trial Court came to the right conclusion that in this

case  the  respondent  has  admitted  even in his  cross-examination that  he  was found  in a

drunken position on duty even on earlier occasions.  The Trial Court found further that the

respondent  had made a categorical unequivocal admission to  that effect  even before the

punishing authority that he used to drink during duty hours.  In view of the said admission

the  Trial  Court  rightly  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  respondent  was  entitled  to

reinstatement without back wages.  The Trial Court found that the respondent's case comes in

the category of “no work, no pay”.  This finding of the Trial Court was reversed by the First

Appellate Court which directed not only reinstatement but also back wages.  The decision of

the First Appellate Court has been affirmed by the High Court.  Hence the Department has

come by way of this Civil Appeal.

Looking to the admissions made by the respondent herein, we are of the view that

the Trial Court was right in decreeing the  

-4-

Suit in favour of respondent No. 1 by ordering reinstatement without back wages.  We are of

the view that the First Appellate Court and the High Court should not have interfered with

the decree passed by the Trial Court.  In the present case, as stated above, respondent has

admitted, both before the punishing authority and in his cross-examination in Court that he

used to drink during duty hours.  In the circumstances, respondent would be entitled to only

reinstatement without back wages.

Accordingly, the Department's Civil Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to

costs.      

....................J. [ S.H. KAPADIA ]

New Delhi, ....................J September 23, 2008 [ B. SUDERSHAN REDDY ]