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

2012 Supreme(Del) 2414

DELHI HIGH COURT
A.K.Sikri, Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, JJ.
Court On Its Own Motion - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police & Anr. - Resopndent
W.P.(C) 836/2012
Decided On : 15-02-2012

For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Saini, Amicus Curiae with Mr. Vikas Saini, Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary , Mr. Vikram Saini, Advs., Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Amicus Curiae with Ms. Supriya, Adv.
For the State : Mr. S.S. Gandhi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. M.S. Vinaik, Ms. Anjali Sharma , Mr. Deepak Bashta, Advs.
For Addl. DCP. :Shri Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Advocate.
For the Complainant :Mr. Sunil K. Mittal with Mr. Kshitij Mittal , Mr. Pranav Rishi, Advocates.

Headnote:

Contempt of Court - Delhi Police Act, 1978 - Section 21(2)(c) - Punishment drill - Dereliction of duty by the police constable posted at Court compound - Direction by Addl DCP to the constable to do front rolls in full public glare - Such punishments should not be included in punishment drill which are treated as minor penalty under service rules - Meting out punishment in public glare may be inhuman and deprecated - However no contempt made out - Notice discharged.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. On the last date of hearing, on mentioning of this matter by Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate about the incident occurred within the Court complex of Patiala House Courts on 7th February, 2012, cognizance was taken. It was found that the some lawyers had also made a complaint about this incident to the District Judge and the District Judge had passed order on the said complaint requesting the Commissioner of Police, PHQ, New Delhi to look into the same and take appropriate action.

2. Two aspects were/are pointed out by Mr. Saini, namely:-

(i) The punishment meted out by the Addl. DCP Mr. Seju P. Kurvila to the Constable asking to do front rolls in Patiala House Court Complex was inhuman and in violation of human rights of the said Constable.

(ii) The aforesaid act which happened within the premises of Patiala House Courts amounted to criminal contempt falling within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act.

3. Notice was issued to the Commissioner of Police as well as the concerned Addl. DCP. Mr. Sharma appears on behalf of Police Commissioner & Mr. S.S. Gandhi, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Vinaik appears on behalf of Mr. Seju P. Kurvila, Add. DCP.

4. In so far as first aspect is concerned, our attention is drawn to Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 which stipulates the punishments that can be awarded to the delinquent officer. In the minor punishments one of the punishment prescribed in sub Section 2 Clause (c) sub Section 2 of Section 21 reads as under:-

“any police officer of, and above, the rank of Inspector may award punishment drill not exceeding fifteen days or fatigue duty or any other punitive duty to constables.”

5. It is thus the submission of the Mr. Gandhi that punishment drill is prescribed as one of the minor punishments under Section 21 of the Act.

6. We had requested Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate to assist in the matter. He has drawn our attention to Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Chapter XVI thereof deals with punishments in Rule 16.1 (2) department punishment which can be inflicted on the Police officials are mentioned. For our purpose, the following punishments which are stipulated therein would be relevant:-

Sr. No.

Departmental punishment

Inspectors

Sergeants, Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors

Head Constables

Constables

7

Punishment drill not exceeding 15 days

-

-

-

Supdt. of Police also Sr. Asstt., Supdt. of Police, Lahore, Dy. Supdt. (Administrative), Railway Police, Dy. Supdt. – in – Charge of Railway Police Sub Division and Officerin- Charge of Police Recruits Training Centre, Amritsar, and subject to confirmation of Police, any Asstt. Supdt. of Police and Dy. Supdt. of Police of over three years gazette service.

8

Punishment drill not exceeding 10 days

-

-

-

Assistant and Dy. Superintendents.

9

Punishment drill not exceeding 6 days

-

-

-

Inspectors

10

Punishment drill not exceeding 3 days

-

-

-

Sub-Inspectors

7. As per the aforesaid provision also punishment drill of different durations can be inflicted as a penalty.

8. Rule 16.7 of the said Chapter defines what ‘punishment drill’ would mean and reads as under:-

“16.7 (1) Punishment drill shall consist of drill with a masket and rolled great-cot for not more than six or less than four hours in any one day, with an interval of at least 30 minutes between each hour. One such days shall be counted towards the completion of an award of punishment drill on which such drill is actually carried out.

(2) An officer awarding punishment drill may direct that the constable so punished, if attached to the reserve, shall not leave the lines, except on duty during the days on which such punishment is to be carried out.”

9. The aforesaid provision does not include front rolls/crawling within the category of punishment



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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