http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CONSTABLE SARWAN SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/01/1996

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) SEN, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (1)   584        1996 SCALE  (1)565

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T B.P.JEEVAN REDDY.J.      Leave granted. Heard counsel for both the parties.      This appeal  arises from  the order of a learned Single Judge of  the Punjab  and Haryana  High Court dismissing the Second Appeal  preferred by  the State  of Punjab in limine. The  respondent  was  a  police  constable.  a  disciplinary inquiry was  held against  him for unauthorised absence from duty. At  the conclusion  of the  disciplinary inquiry,  the Superintendent of  Police,  Ropar,  gave  a  notice  to  the respondent calling  upon him to show-cause why he should not be dismissed  from service.  Respondent submitted his reply. At that  stage, it appears, he was transferred from Ropar to District Sangrur.  From District  Sangrur he was transferred to  District   Patiala.  The   relevant  file   relating  to disciplinary proceedings was also transferred to Patiala. On April 25, 1984 an order was passed dismissing the respondent from service.  The order  is signed  by  "Superintendent  of Police, Patiala".  At the  foot of the said order, the names of persons  to whom  copies of  the said  order was sent are mentioned.  Thereafter,  there  is  the  signature  of  "Sri J.P.Virdi, I.P.S., Superintendent of Police, Patiala".      The respondent  filed a  suit challenging  the order of his dismissal.  The Trial Court decreed the suit on the only ground that  the order  of dismissal  has not been passed by the Superintendent  of Police  in-charge of the District but by Sri  J.P.Virdi who  was only  a Superintendent  of Police (Headquarters). The Trial Court was of the opinion that only the Superintendent  of Police,  in-charge of the District is competent to  dismiss a  police constable under the relevant rules. This  finding of the Trial Court has been affirmed by the learned  District Judge  on appeal. The learned District Judge observed  that Sri  J.P.Virdi was not in-charge of the District at  the relevant time and, therefore, not competent to pass  the order of dismissal. The Second Appeal preferred by the  State of Punjab has been dismissed by the High Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

in limine, as stated above.      In this  appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for the  State of Punjab that according to the Punjab Police Rules [Chapter  XVI]. constables  can be dismissed by one of the  officers  mentioned  under  Column  (6)  of  the  table appended to Rule 16.1. The Officers mentioned under the said Column   are:    "Superintendents    of    Police,    Deputy Superintendent (Administrative),  Government Railway Police; Deputy Superintendents-  in-charge of  Railway  Police  Sub- Divisions;  Senior   Assistant  Superintendent   of  Police, Lahore; Officer-in-charge of Recruits Training Centres". The contention is  Column 6 mentions "Superintendents of Police" [Plural]  and,   not  merely   "Superintendent  of   Police" [Singular] and,  therefore, a Superintendent of Police under whom  the  constable  [delinquent  officer]  is  working  is competent to  dismiss  him.  It  is  not  necessary,  it  is contended, that  the Superintendent  of Police  in-charge of the district  alone should pass such orders. It is submitted that the  respondent has not alleged or established that the officer  who  signed  the  dismissal  order  -  whether  Sri J.P.Virdi or  another - was not having control over him. The burden of  establishing that  the "Superintendent of Police, Patiala" who  signed the dismissal order has no authority to do so  lay upon him and that he has failed to discharge that burden. On  the other  hand, the  learned  counsel  for  the respondent relies  upon certain  decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High  Court holding  that only the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent  of  Police  in-charge  of  the district is competent to pass the order of dismissal.      It may be noticed that the order of dismissal is signed by "Superintendent  of Police,  Patiala".  The  officer  who passed the order did not describe himself as "Superintendent of Police  (Headquarters)". Whether  that description is not correct is  a question  which the  High Court  ought to have dealt with.  It should  also have  dealt with  the  question whether the  order is  incompetent, if it has been passed by the "Superintendent  of Police  (Headquarters)". It may also be necessary  to find  out whether the respondent was posted in the  Headquarters at the time of his dismissal and was he subordinate to "Superintendent of Police [Headquarters]". It may also  be necessary  to deal  with the  contention of the State based  upon the  language employed under Column (6) of Rule 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules, set out hereinabove.      Since  the   question  arising  herein  is  of  general application, we  think it  appropriate that  the  matter  is examined  in   depth  by  the  High  Court.  The  appeal  is accordingly allowed, the order under appeal is set aside and the matter  remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the appeal  in accordance  with the  law and in the light of the observations  contained in this judgment. The High Court is requested  to admit the Second Appeal, give notice to the respondent  and   dispose  of   the  appeal  on  merits.  If necessary, the  High Court  shall be  free to  call for such further evidence  as it  may think  necessary for a just and proper disposal  of the  appeal. The  High  Court  may  also consider expeditious disposal of the matter.      The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.