30 August 1996
Supreme Court
Download

BISHAN SINGH & ORS. Vs STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

Bench: RAMASWAMY,K.
Case number: Appeal Criminal 125 of 1972


1

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

PETITIONER: BISHAN SINGH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment and order  dated May  7, 1991  of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at  Chandigarh made  in RSA No.2260/80. The admitted facts are  that three  appellants along  with 27  others had gone in  a procession, in spite of the prohibitory order, to represent, to the Superintendent of Police at his residence, their  grievance   of  inadequate  accommodation  and  other facilities not  provided to  them. That was done after their duty was  over in  the  evening.  For  the  making  of  such representation and  for violating  the prohibitory order, an enquiry was  conducted against  the three appellants who had taken initiative  and led  the procession,  making a  charge that they  were guilty of grave misconduct under Rule 16 [2] of the  Punjab Police  Rules which  is  held  to  have  been proved; resultantly,  they were  dismissed from service. The order of  dismissal was confirmed on appeal. Thereafter, the appellants filed  suit for  declaration that  the  order  of dismissal was  null and  void and  inoperative; the suit was decreed on  April 7,  1979. On  appeal, it  was dismissed on February 20,  1980. In  the second  appeal, the  High  Court reversed the  decisions and  dismissed the  suit. Thus  this appeal by special leave.      It is  true that the appellants are disciplined members of  the   police  force.   The   grievance   of   inadequate accommodation provided  to them is a legitimate grievance to be represented  to the  officer for its redressal. No doubt, prohibitory order was issued and there is violation thereof; however, the  appellants marched  peacefully to  make  their representation. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that  they  have  committed  misconduct  warranting  extreme penalty of dismissal from service. Accordingly, the order of the High  Court is  set aside.  However, the respondents are directed to  impose penalty  of stoppage  of  one  increment without cumulative effect.

2

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

    The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The appellants are entitled  to   reinstatement  with   all  the  consequential benefits. No costs.