Back
2008(3) Supreme 308
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Man Singh — Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 3186 of 2008
[Arising out of SLP [C) No.19917 of 2006]
Decided on : 01-05-2008
(b) Service Law – Departmental Proceeding – The appellate authority exonerating HC Vijay Pal who was the real culprit and sole accused in the Excise case mainly on the ground of his acquittal in the said case and after exoneration, he had been promoted to the higher post – The appellant who was incharge of police party, on the other hand, was punished on technical ground that he had not exercised proper and effective control over HC Vijay Pal at the time of commission of the Excise offence by him; notwithstanding his unblemished service record of three decades – Imposition of punishment held not fair, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified and also against the doctrine of equality – Impugned judgment not sustainable. (Paras 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
1. The appellant-plaintiff was serving as Sub-Inspector in Police Department, Rohtak. In July 1996, the appellant was deputed as Incharge of the police party comprising of ASI Sucha Singh, HC Suraj Bhan and HC Vijay Pal for taking two Government vehicles bearing Nos. HR 22 0020 and HR 03A 7880 respectively from Chandigarh to Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) for repair and fitting of Jammers.
2. HC Vijay Pal was driving one of the vehicles. He purchased 12 bottles of Indian-Made Foreign Liquor [IMFL] at Kota (Rajasthan) and concealed the consignment of the liquor in the dickey of the car without the knowledge and consent of the appellant. On checking of the vehicles by the Excise Staff of Adilabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh, 12 bottles of IMFL were recovered from the luggage boot of the car being driven by HC Vijay Pal, and a case PR No.470/95-96 dated 31.07.1996 was registered against HC Vijay Pal for transporting liquor in violation of prohibitory orders of the State Government.
3. A departmental inquiry was ordered against the appellant and HC Vijay Pal charging the appellant with improper control over his subordinates which amounts to dereliction of duties and for the lapses of indiscipline as Police Officer. The Inquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of the charge on the basis of summary of allegations.
4. Respondent No.2, keeping in view the length of service and unblemished record of service of the appellant, imposed punishment of stoppage of two annual future increments with permanent effect upon the appellant.
5. Statutory appeal and revision filed by appellant were rejected.
6. Suit instituted by appellant was rejected as also the first appeal.
7. His Second Appeal in the High Court was also dismissed.
Findings of the Court :
The administrative action violated the doctrine of equality, and hence is not sustainable.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The judgment holds that administrative action must be just on the test of "fair play" and reasonableness, grounded in Article 14 equality (!) . - It emphasizes no discrimination between similarly situated individuals in disciplinary punishment, comparing appellant with HC Vijay Pal and condemning selective/unequal treatment (!) (!) (!) . - It states Civil Courts cannot sit in appeal over departmental proceedings or punishment, except within limited jurisdiction for substantial questions of law, which were not properly framed in the High Court’s decision (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court exercises Article 142 power to decide on merits to avoid delay, and decrees the suit in terms of relief sought, indicating final adjudication on the merits in special circumstances (!) (!) . - The case concludes that the High Court’s judgment was unreasoned and that the appellant’s punishment is unlawful due to inequality with the acquitted/ exonerated co-accused (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. —
1. Special leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.03.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, whereby and whereunder Regular Second Appeal No.4272 of 2005 filed by the appellant-plaintiff from the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, in Civil Appeal No.21 of 2005, was dismissed.
3. Facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’) was serving as Sub-Inspector in Police Department, Rohtak. In July 1996, the appellant was deputed as Incharge of the police party comprising of ASI Sucha Singh, HC Suraj Bhan and HC Vijay Pal for taking two Government vehicles bearing Nos. HR 22 0020 and HR 03A 7880 respectively from Chandigarh to Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) for repair and fitting of Jammers. HC Vijay Pal was driving one of the vehicles. He purchased 12 bottles of Indian-Made Foreign Liquor [IMFL] at Kota (Rajasthan) and concealed the consignment of the liquor in the dickey of the car without the knowledge and consent of the appellant. On checking of the vehicles by the Excise Staff of Adilabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh, 12 bottles of IMFL were recovered from the luggage boot of the car being driven by HC Vijay Pal, which gave rise to registration of a case PR No.470/95-96 dated 31.07.1996 against HC Vijay Pal for transporting liquor in violation of prohibitory orders of the State Government.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, - respondent No.2 herein ordered a departmental inquiry against the appellant and HC Vijay Pal charging the appellant with improper control over his subordinates which amounts to dereliction of duties and for the lapses of indiscipline as Police Officer. The Inquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of the charge on the basis of summary of allegations and submitted his report to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2, on receipt of the inquiry report, issued show-cause notice dated 18.03.1997 to the appellant calling upon him to show-cause why penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him. The appellant was directed to file his reply within 15 days from the receipt of the show-cause notice and in default thereof, final order of the proposed penalty of dismissal from the service would be passed against him. The appellant, accordingly, filed a detailed reply to the show-cause notice denying the allegations of misconduct and dereliction of duties on his part. He submitted that he has unblemished service record to his credit and has never been found guilty of any acts of omissions and commissions in discharging his duties during his long service career of about 34 years in the Police Department of the State.
5. Respondent No.2, keeping in view the length of service and unblemished record of service of the appellant, imposed punishment of stoppage of two annual future increments with permanent effect upon the appellant.
6. The appellant filed statutory appeal dated 11.08.1999 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range respondent No.3 herein, under Rule 16.29 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 against the order of respondent No.2. The Appellate Authority by an order dated 11.08.1999 rejected the appeal of the appellant.
7. The appellant preferred Revision Petition before the Director General of Police, Haryana respondent No.4 herein, which came to be rejected by an order dated 15.06.2001.
8. The appellant thereafter instituted suit inter alia praying for declaration that the order of punishment dated 30.09.1997 passed by respondent No.2; order dated 11.08.1999 recorded by respondent No.3 in appeal vide which the order of punishment was upheld and the appeal of the appellant was dismissed and order dated 15.06.2001 passed by respondent No.4 upholding the orders of the authorities below being illegal, null
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
