SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1361

1996(7) Supreme 482
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Bishan Singh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Punjab & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12020 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18940 of 1991)
Decided on 30-8-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : K. Sultan Singh and R.M. Misra, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Manoj Swarup, Advocate.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Misconduct-Appellants members of police force led a procession in violation of prohibitory order-Procession was peaceful to represent legitimate grievance of inadequate accommodation-They could not be said to have committed misconduct warranting extreme penalty of dismissal from service-Penalty of stopage of one increment without cumulative effect imposed. (Para 3)

       

ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. 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.

3. 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.

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

Appeal allowed accordingly.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top