1. Police officer dismissed for misconduct after failing to appear before a Medical Board despite lawful orders from superior authorities. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 2216
1997(1) Supreme 467
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. Agrawal and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Secretary to Government & Ors.
-Appellants
versus
A.C.J. Britto . -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4187 of 1994
Decided on 19-12-1996
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants : P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate, V. Krishnamurthy, and V. Ramasubramaniam, Advocates.
For the Respondent : S. Ravindra Bhat, Sudarsh Menon, Naveen R. Natu, Ms. Kiran Bharadwaj and Ms. Hetu Arora, Advocates.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Not obeying a legitimate prefer of his superior by a member of the Police Force has to be regarded as an act of indiscipline and would certainly provide a good and sufficient reason for initiating a disciplinary proceeding.
Not obeying a legitimate prefer of his superior by a member of the Police Force has to be regarded as an act of indiscipline and would certainly provide a good and sufficient reason for initiating a disciplinary proceeding.
Subject
Disciplinary Action - Dismissal
Act Referred
SERVICE LAW: .
TAMIL NADU POLICE SUBORDINATE SERVICES DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES: R.3(b)
TAMIL NADU POLICE SUBORDINATE SERVICES DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES: R.3(b)
Headnote
(i) SERVICE LAW-Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules-Rule 3(b)- Misconduct-Not obeying a legitimate order of his superior by a member of the Police Force-To be regarded as an act of indiscipline- A good and sufficient reason for initiating a disciplinary proceeding even when Rules applicable do not specify acts of misconduct.
Held: Not obeying a legitimate order of his superior by a member of the Police Force has to be regarded as an act of indiscipline and would certainly provide a good and sufficient reason for initiating a disciplinary proceeding. (Para 8)
Further held that the reason given by him for not remaining present before the Medical Board was a false excuse. It was his intention not to comply with the said order. His not appearing before the Medical Board was with a view to avoid an enquiry regarding his true state of health so that he was not compelled to resume duty. It was thus an act of disobedience and indiscipline. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that there was no good and sufficient reason for initiating a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent. (Para 10)
Such an act of insubordination or disobedience of an order by a police officer has to be viewed seriously as higher degree of discipline is expected of a member belonging to the Police Force. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no good and sufficient reason or a valid justification for initiating the disciplinary proceedings against him. (Para 6)
(ii) SERVICE LAW-Sub-Inspector of Police-Dismissal from service -Order set aside by Tribunal holding that only disciplinary authority can initiate a departmental proceeding against delinquent Government servant-Not sustainable-It being contrary to law laid down by this Court in Thavasiappan s case. (Para 4)
(iii) SERVICE LAW-Dismissal from service-Effect of non-furnishing a copy of enquiry report-Law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan s case has prospective operation only. (Para 5)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to dismissal based on initiation by subordinate officer, lack of specific misconduct rules, denial of documents, and non-furnishing of inquiry report. (Para 3 )
3. Disobedience of lawful orders by police officers constitutes misconduct; requested documents were irrelevant; non-furnishing of inquiry report did not vitiate the 1984 order. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 10 , 11 )
4. In the absence of specific misconduct definitions, disobedience of a legitimate order by a police officer provides good and sufficient reason for disciplinary action. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal allowed; Tribunal order set aside; dismissal of the respondent affirmed. (Para 12 )
6. Can a disciplinary proceeding be initiated by an officer subordinate in rank to the disciplinary authority?
Yes, the court held that the initiation of departmental proceedings by an officer subordinate to the disciplinary authority does not vitiate the proceedings. (Para 4 )
7. Does an act constitute misconduct if it is not specifically enumerated in the service rules?
Yes, if the rules allow penalties for good and sufficient reason, an act of indiscipline—such as disobeying a legitimate order of a superior—can justify disciplinary proceedings even if not explicitly listed as misconduct. (Para 7 , 8 )
8. Does the refusal to provide documents during a departmental inquiry automatically deprive an employee of a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves?
No. If the requested documents are irrelevant to the specific charges, the refusal to provide them does not deprive the employee of a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. (Para 11 )
9. Does the non-furnishing of an inquiry report necessarily nullify a dismissal order?
Not necessarily. The court noted that the law regarding the mandatory furnishing of inquiry reports has prospective operation, and orders passed prior to certain dates may remain valid. (Para 5 )
JUDGMENT
Nanavati, J.-The respondent was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police in 1962. While posted at Madurai, a departmental action was initiated against him under Rule 3(b), of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and on being found guilty he was dismissed from service by an order dated 3.11.79. That order was set aside in appeal by the Inspector General of Police on the ground that in conducting the inquiry there was violation of the prescribed procedure. The enquiry officer was directed to proceed further with the inquiry from the stage it was found to be bad.
2. As the order of dismissal was set aside the respondent was reinstated in service. He was posted at Tiruchirapalli (Trichy) as Sub-Inspector Incharge of Vikkiramangaiam Police Station. He joined the duty at that Police Station on 12.11.80 and proceeded on casual leave from 13.11.80 to 19.11.80. Instead of resuming duty on 20.11.80 he applied for medical leave and thereafter went on extending it continuously till he was placed under suspension on 14.6.81. As he was remaining continuously absent on the ground of health, the Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirapalli by his memo dated 22.4.81 directed him to appear before the District Medical Officer for being presented before the Medical Committee for examination as regards his fitness to return to duty. He did not appear before the District Medical Officer on that day. The Superintendent of Police, therefore, again by a memo dated 4.6.81 directed him to appear before the District Medical Officer for the said purpose. That memo was served upon the respondent on 4.6.81 itself. The District Medical Officer, Trichy by a letter dated 4.6.81 requested the Superintendent of Police to direct the respondent to appear before the Medical Board at Government Headquarters Hospital, Trichy on 9.6.81 at 10 hours for medical examination. A communication to that effect was also served upon the respondent. As the respondent did not appear for medical examination on 9.6.81 the District Medical Officer by his letter dated 10.6.81 informed the Superintendent of Police about non-compliance of the said directions. His non-appearance and non-compliance with the order of the Deputy Superintendent of Police were reported to Inspector General of Police. Considering it as an act of misconduct the respondent was suspended on 14.6.81 and, a departmental proceeding by issuing a charge-memo was initiated against him on 27.7.81. The said charge-memo could not be served upon the respondent earlier than 2.11.81 as he was not available. The enquiry officer concluded the inquiry and found him guilty and on the basis thereof an order of dismissal was passed against him by the disciplinary authority on 24.5.84.
3. He challenged that order of dismissal by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Madras, That petition was subsequently transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and was numbered as T.A. No. 606 of 1991. The respondent challenged his dismissal on the ground that the inquiry and the dismissal order were vitiated as the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by an officer subordinate m rank to the disciplinary authority. It was also challenged on the ground that by not appearing before the Medical Board the respondent cannot be said to have disobeyed the order of the superior authority and in any case. that did not amount to a misconduct of grave nature. It was also challenged on the ground that the enquiry officer, by denying him the documents which he wanted, deprived him of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Tribunal, relying upon its earlier judgments, held that the disciplinary authority alone can initiate a disciplinary proceeding against a Government servant under Rule 3(b) of the said Rules and as the charge-memo, in this case was issued by an officer subordinate to the disciplinary authority the entire disciplinary proceeding stood vitiated. The Tribunal also hel
