NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  8057     OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.1740 of 2006]

State of Uttar Pradesh & Others .. Appellants

Versus

Ram Daras Yadav .. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal  

are recapitulated as under:-

The respondent, a constable in the 26th Battalion of the  

Provincial  Arms  Constabulary  (P.A.C.)  in  Gorakhpur  was  

assigned duty of maintaining law and order in the Faizabad  

University.   While  on  duty  on  18.2.1990,  the  respondent  

herein  used  abusive  language  against  his  companion  

constable Gajendra Kumar Singh.

3. The  respondent  while  on  security  duty  on  19.2.1990  

from  0200  hours  to  0400  hours  aimed  rifle  at  Gajendra  

Kumar Singh and threatened to eliminate him.  A preliminary  

enquiry  was  conducted  in  the  aforesaid  incident  by  the  

Company  Commander  who  prima  facie  found  that  the  

respondent had behaved in an indisciplined manner and he  

also  made  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  harm his  colleague  

constable Gajendra Kumar Singh.  It  was concluded in the  

preliminary enquiry that the reputation of the force had also  

been lowered by the said constable Gajendra Kumar Singh.  

Hence, both the respondent and  constable Gajendra Kumar  

Singh were placed under suspension and it was recommended  

that the proceedings be launched against them under section  

7  of  the  Police  Act  and  departmental  proceedings  be  

conducted against the aforesaid persons under para 490 of  

the U.P. Police Regulations.  

4. Explanations  were  called  from  the  respondent  and  

constable Gajendra Kumar Singh and thereafter the charges  

against  the  respondent  were  found  established.   The  

Commandant of the Battalion concluded that the charges of  

indiscipline and unbecoming conduct were proved against the  

2

respondent and hence it was ordered that the respondent be  

terminated  from  the  police  service.   The  services  of  the  

respondent were terminated by an order dated 16.1.1991.

5. The  appeal  preferred  by  the  respondent  before  the  

Deputy Inspector of Police, P.A.C., Varanasi Range was also  

dismissed.  The  respondent  aggrieved  by  the  said  order  

preferred a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court.  In  

the counter-affidavit,  the appellant  State of  UP justified the  

action  against  the  respondent.   In  the  writ  petition  it  was  

alleged that the respondent and Gajendra Kumar Singh filed  

complaints  against  each  other  on  the  instigation  of  their  

superiors  to  cause  harm to  both  of  them.   It  was  further  

alleged that the respondent and Gajendra Kumar Singh both  

gave in writing that they were coerced to make complaints and  

they had no grouse against each other.

6. In the writ petition it was also urged that the respondent  

was not given sufficient and reasonable opportunity to cross-

examine the witnesses and even a copy of the charge-sheet  

was not provided to him.

3

7. It  was  further  urged  before  the  High  Court  that  the  

action against the respondent was not covered under section 7  

of  the  Police  Act  and  as  such  there  was  no  allegation  of  

negligence against the respondent.  Section 7 of the Police Act  

reads as under:-

“7. Appointment, dismissal etc. of inferior officers –  Subject  to  provisions  of  Article  311  of  the  Constitution  and  to  such  rules  as  the  State  Government  may from time to time make under  this Act, the Inspector General, Deputy Inspectors  General, Assistants Inspectors-General and District  Superintendent of Police, may at any time dismiss,  suspend  or  reduce  any  police  officer  of  the  subordinate rank whom they shall think fits remiss  or negligent in the discharge of his duty or unfit for  the same;

or  may  award  any  one  or  more  of  the  following  punishments  to  any  police  officer  of  the  subordinate ranks who shall discharge his duty in  a careless or negligent manner, or who by any act  of  his  own  shall  render  himself  unfit  for  the  discharge thereof namely:

a) Fine to any amount not exceeding one month’s  pay;

b) Confinement  to  quarters  for  a  term  not  exceeding  fifteen  days,  with  or  without  punishment – drill, extra guards, fatigue or other  duty;

c) Deprivation of good conduct pay;

d) Removal from any office of distinction or special  emoluments;

4

e) Withholding  of  increments  or  promotion  including stoppage at an efficiency bar.”

8. According  to  the  impugned  judgment,  action  under  

section 7 is not unjustified.  In the impugned judgment, it is  

incorporated that when Gajendra Kumar Singh had given in  

writing  that  no  such  incident  took  place  then  it  was  

incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to consider this aspect.  

The High Court observed that Gajendra Kumar Singh was the  

best witness to prove the factum of pointing the gun on him,  

but  he  refused  that  any  such  incident  took  place.   The  

respondent  admittedly  moved  an  application  before  the  

Enquiry Officer to depute Gajendra Kumar Singh as a defence  

helper but no order was passed on that application. The High  

Court further held that the best evidence of the incident had  

been ignored by both the Enquiry Officer and by the Appellate  

Authority and thus the impugned orders cannot be sustained.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the State of U.P.  

and the respondent.   Learned counsel  for the State  of U.P.  

submitted  that  the  observations  of  the  High  Court  that  no  

such incident took place is not sustainable in view of the fact  

that  in  the  complaint  filed  by  Gajendra  Kumar  Singh  it  is  

5

stated that the incident took place.  The appellant is justified  

in asserting that the incident had infact taken place and there  

were exchange of abuses between the two constables.  Now we  

are  called  upon  to  determine  whether  in  the  facts  and  

circumstances  of  the  case  the  sentence  imposed  on  the  

respondent was justified?

10. We are quite conscious of the fact that we are dealing  

with  a  disciplined  police  organization.   Discipline  is  the  

backbone of the police force.  Highest degree of discipline is  

imperative for the smooth functioning of a police force.  Both  

the respondent and Gajendra Kumar Singh have stated that  

infact the incident had not taken place and they were coerced  

to file complaints at the instance of the superior officials.  It is  

difficult for us to examine the veracity of this allegation by the  

respondent and Gajendra Kumar Singh. Without arriving at  

any  definite  conclusion  regarding  veracity  of  allegation  and  

counter-allegations,  we  are  clearly  of  the  opinion  that  the  

punishment  of  dismissal  awarded  in  the  facts  and  

circumstances of the case is clearly disproportionate.   

6

11. In our considered view, the impugned order of the High  

Court  requires  modification  and  consequently,  the  order  of  

termination dated 16.1.1991 is set aside and instead we direct  

that  the  respondent’s  two  increments  be  withheld  and  the  

respondent be reinstated in service forthwith with 50% back-

wages.

12. The appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.  In the facts  

and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear  

their own costs.

…….…….……………………..J.                                          (Dalveer Bhandari)

………….……………………..J.                                                       (A.K. Patnaik) New Delhi; December  4, 2009

7