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

2009 Supreme(SC) 1805

2009(8) Supreme 27
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and A.K. Patnaik, JJ.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Others — Appellants
versus
Ram Daras Yadav — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8057 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.1740 of 2006]
Decided on : 4-12-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Discipline is the backbone of the police force. Hence highest degree of discipline is imperative for the smooth functioning of a police force.

Headnote:Police Act - Section 7 – U.P. Police Regulations – Para 490 – Respondent, a constable in the 26th Battalion of the Provincial Arms Constabulary (P.A.C.) while on duty on 18.2.1990 used abusive language against his companion constable – Enquiry was conducted against respondent as while on security duty on 19.2.1990 he aimed rifle at G and threatened to eliminate him – Company Commander held that respondent had behaved in an indisciplined manner and he also made an unsuccessful attempt to harm his colleague constable G – Commandant of Battalion concluded that charges of indiscipline and unbecoming conduct were proved against respondent and hence it was ordered that the respondent be terminated from the police service – Challengethereagainst –. 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 G had stated that infact the incident had not taken place and they were coerced to file complaints at the instance of the superior officials – Held difficult to examine the veracity of this allegation by respondent and G –. Without arriving at any definite conclusion regarding veracity of allegation and counter allegations, held that punishment of dismissal awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case was clearly disproportionate – Order of termination set aside and instead directed that the respondent’s two increments be withheld and the respondent be reinstated in service forthwith with 50% back wages –Appeal partly allowed and disposed of. (Paras 9 to 12)

       Facts of the Case :

        Respondent, a constable in the 26th Battalion of the Provincial Arms Constabulary (P.A.C.) while on duty on 18.2.1990 used abusive language against his companion constable. Enquiry was conducted against respondent as while on security duty on 19.2.1990 he aimed rifle at G and threatened to eliminate him. Company Commander held that respondent had behaved in an indisciplined manner and he also made an unsuccessful attempt to harm his colleague constable G. Commandant of Battalion concluded that charges of indiscipline and unbecoming conduct were proved against respondent and hence it was ordered that the respondent be terminated from the police service.

        2. Issue in consideration in present case was whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence imposed on the respondent was justified.

       Findings of the Court :

        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 G had stated that infact the incident had not taken place and they were coerced to file complaints at the instance of the superior officials-Held difficult to examine the veracity of this allegation by respondent and G. Without arriving at any definite conclusion regarding veracity of allegation and counter-allegations, held that punishment of dismissal awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case was clearly disproportionate. Order of termination was set aside and instead it was directed that the respondent’s two increments be withheld and the respondent be reinstated in service forthwith with 50% back-wages. Appeal was partly allowed and disposed of

JUDGMENT

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 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.

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;

e) Withholding of increments or promo






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