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

1967 Supreme(P&H) 91

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Tek Chand, J.
Bhagwat Parshad
Versus
Inspector General Of Police, Punjab
Civil Writ No. 756 of 1966,
Decided On : AUGUST 1, 1967

The punishment of dismissal can be imposed for a single act of misconduct if it is of a sufficiently grave nature.

Headnote:

PUNJAB POLICE RULES - Dismissal - Imposition of penalty - Conditions - Interpretation of Rule 16.2 (1) - 'Gravest acts of misconduct' - Meaning and scope - Single act of misconduct - Whether can be punished with dismissal - Construction of superlative degree - Use of 'only' - Effect - Contemporaneous construction by police officers - Relevance - Interference by Court - Scope.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a police constable, was dismissed from service for being under the influence of liquor and creating rowdyism in the police lines. He challenged the order of dismissal, contending that the punishment was too harsh and that the inquiry was not conducted properly.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner's conduct amounted to grave misconduct and that the punishment of dismissal was justified. It rejected the petitioner's contention that the inquiry was not conducted properly, holding that he had been given ample opportunity to defend himself.

Issues: 1. Whether a single act of misconduct can be punished with dismissal under Rule 16.2 (1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934? 2. Whether the use of the superlative degree 'gravest' and the adverb 'only' in Rule 16.2 (1) indicates that dismissal can be imposed only for the most extreme acts of misconduct? 3. Whether the contemporaneous construction of the rule by police officers is relevant in determining the meaning of 'gravest acts of misconduct'?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that a single act of misconduct can be punished with dismissal if it is of a sufficiently grave nature. It rejected the petitioner's argument that the use of the plural 'acts' in Rule 16.2 (1) necessarily means that there must be multiple acts of misconduct in order to justify dismissal. 2. The court held that the use of the superlative degree 'gravest' and the adverb 'only' in Rule 16.2 (1) does not mean that dismissal can be imposed only for the most extreme acts of misconduct. It held that the superlative degree is often used to emphasize a particular quality without intending that it cannot be surpassed. 3. The court held that the contemporaneous construction of the rule by police officers is relevant in determining the meaning of 'gravest acts of misconduct'. It gave weight to the fact that the Superintendent of Police, the Deputy Inspector General, and the Inspector General of Police had all concluded that the petitioner's conduct was of the requisite gravity to merit dismissal.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's dismissal was justified.

Judgment

1. Bhagwat Prasad petitioner, Constable No. 1751 Police Lines, Ambala, has filed this writ petition praying that the order of his dismissal be quashed.

2. On 3rd of January 1965 he was posted in the Police Lines, Ambala, and when off duty was alleged to have taken liquor along with Constable Sam Pal. At about 10 P. M. in Barrack No. 1, Ram Pal, Constable No. 1669, had abused Kuldip Raj, Constable No. 846. It was alleged that the petitioner was under the influence of drink and was noisy and did not desist even when told to do so by Foot Constable Kuldip Raj. Kuldip Raj reported to Nanak Chand Reserve Inspector about the misbehaviour of the petitioner and of Ram Pal. It was about 10-30 P. M. that the Reserve Inspector along with a Head Constable and a Foot Constable came to the barrack and found Ram Pal absent. The petitioner was in his bed and the Reserve Inspector asked him to accompany him to the Police doctor in the Police Lines. The doctor examined the petitioner and was of the view that he had taken liquor. The same night the matter was reported to the Superintendent of Police, Ambala. He deputed Sub-Inspector Basant Singh to make an inquiry and the latter submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police on 12th of February 1965. According to Sub-Inspector Basant Singh, the petitioner and also Constable Ram Pal were guilty of having taken liquor and creating rowdyism under its influence in the Police Lines premises. The report was considered by the Superintendent of Police, who passed a detailed order on 4th of March, 1965. He came to the conclusion that Bhagwat Prasad petitioner had committed grave misconduct and in his view if Police Officers in Police Lines were allowed to drink, that would be the end of all discipline in the Police Force. The Superintendent of Police observed that the gravity of the misconduct of the petitioner was "of the most reprehensible nature" for which there could be only one punishment, namely dismissal from service. He accepted the testimony of Dr. Chaman Lal, in charge Police Hospital, Ambala, as to the petitioner having been under the influence of drink. The statements of other prosecution witnesses were also considered. The defence of the petitioner was that he had pain in his chest and teeth and had gone to a private practitioner, Dr. Arjan Dev, who had applied chloroform spirit on his aching tooth. The Superintendent of Police rejected this plea and commented that petitioner, if actually in pain, ought to have consulted the police doctor in the Police Lines rather than nave gone to a private practitioner in the city. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Ambala Range, which was rejected. The Deputy Inspector-General thought that "creating rowdyism under the influence of liquor in the Police Lines was a matter for severe consideration. The petition for revision filed before the Additional Inspector-General of Police was also unsuccessful. The petitioner has now come up to this Court and has filed the present writ petition.

3. His first contention is that his application, to the Inquiry Officer, Sub-Inspector Basant Singh, remained un-heeded. In that application The had asked that he be supplied with the copies of the documents to be proved against him during the departmental inquiry. He had also asked for the copies of the statements of all the prosecution witnesses that had been recorded and also of the report sent to the District Magistrate, Ambala, for his sanction along with the actual sanction. As the statements of the prosecution witnesses had not yet been recorded, no copies could be supplied. There was no report to the District Magistrate. Ambala, for sanction, and the question of supplying a copy of any such report could not arise. There is really only one document, which is the report dated 3rd of January, 1965 of Sub-Inspector Basant Singh, the Inquiry Officer. In this report he has recorded the fact of the information he had recei

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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