Important Point
Where a misconduct of aiding an accused is committed by a police constable, who holds a position of trust and on whom the society looks forward as a protector of law, in such cases punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be wholly disproportionate.

Headnote:Service Law—Removal from service of a Police Constable—He stood as a surety to an accused who was involved in snatching of goods in 32 cases —Alleged misconduct on part of respondent constable was admitted—Inquiry Officer in his report arrived at a finding of fact that respondent knew fully well that the accused was involved in a series of snatching cases—It further noticed that respondent aided several other criminals in the city in securing bails from Courts—Whether High Court was justified in recording that respondent had maintained a clean record and he had also served the Police Force for a period of 28 years—(No)—High Court committed a manifest error in arriving at such a finding—Whether Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing punishment of removal from service upon respondent —(Yes).
Held : The respondent herein was a Constable. He was to uphold the Rule of Law. It was his duty to aid the prosecution in getting the guilty punished. It was not his duty to aid or abet the accused in fleeing from justice. The accused in question Ahmed Qureshi, in view of the finding of fact arrived at by the disciplinary authority, was a hardened criminal. He had been involved in a series of snatching cases. Not only that, the respondent was also helping the other accused persons in obtaining bails from the Courts. It has been pointed out that in the case in which the respondent stood surety for the said Ahmed Qureshi, he had jumped bail. Presumably because the respondent - a Constable had stood as his surety, he was enlarged on bail by the Court. In a situation of this nature, keeping in view the nature of duties that a protector of law is required to perform, we are firmly of the opinion that the disciplinary authority cannot be said to have committed an error in imposing the punishment of removal from service upon the respondent, particularly when on earlier two occasions also he had been found guilty of commission of misconduct and punished therefor. The High Court thus committed a manifest error in arriving at a finding that the respondent had unblemished record for 28 years. We are not sure whether the High Court’s attention was drawn to the statements made in the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants herein before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which showed contra but on the basis of the materials on record which was before the High Court such finding could not have been arrived at. Furthermore, the punishment of removal from service is not imposed only in the case of fraud or defalcation of government funds but even where a misconduct is committed by a person who holds a position of trust and on whom the society looks forward as a protector of law and in such cases punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be wholly disproportionate, and thus the same was not even violative of doctrine of proportionality. (Paras 13 to 15)

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points with their respective references:

Subject and Case Details: The case is The Commissioner of Police and Ors. versus Syed Hussain, Civil Appeal No. 6319 of 2004, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 25-1-2006, involving administrative law and service law regarding the removal of a police constable from service. (!) (!)
Nature of Misconduct: The respondent, a police constable, was found guilty of misconduct for standing as a surety for an accused (Ahmed Qureshi) involved in 32 snatching cases, aiding the accused in fleeing justice, and helping other criminals secure bail. (!) [1000346810001][1000346810002][1000346810012]
Admission of Guilt: The

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the order dated 7.8.2003 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 15966/2003 whereby and whereunder the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein against a judgment and order dated 22.4.2003 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in O.A. No. 6884/2002 was allowed in part.

2. The respondent was a police constable. He stood as surety to one Ahmed Qureshi. The said person was accused in 32 cases involving snaching of goods from other persons.

3. The alleged misconduct on the part of the respondent was admitted. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him and upon return of verdict of guilt by the inquiry officer, the respondent was directed to be removed from service by the Disciplinary Authority. The respondent filed an Original Application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal questioning the said order. The Tribunal considered the matter in depth and opined that there was no merit in the said application. The Tribunal noticed that the inquiry officer in his report arrived at a finding of fact that the respondent herein knew fully well that the said Ahmed Qureshi was involved in a series of snatching cases. It was also noticed that the respondent had been attending the Court in the said cases. It further noticed that the police officer who was cross-examined as prosecution witness also stated that the respondent aided several other criminals in the city in securing bails from the Courts.

4. On the basis of the said findings, the Original Application was dismissed.

5. On a writ petition having been filed by the respondent before the High Court, the Division Bench of the High Court although did not interfere with the findings of the inquiry officer but interfered with the quantum of punishment. The High Court, however, observed that in view of catena of decisions of this Court, the jurisdiction of the High Court, in interfering with the quantum of punishment, must be exercised in most exceptional cases. Having said so, it recorded that the respondent had maintained a clean record and he had also served the Police force for a period of 28 years as on the date of framing of charges and had another 8 years to serve.

6. On the aforementioned premise as also upon taking note of the fact that he had not been found guilty of commission of any case of fraud or defalcation of government funds, the High Court came to the opinion that the punishment of removal from service would be too harsh and in that view of the matter remitted the case to the appellate authority for substituting the punishment of removal of service by any other punishment except dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement.

7. The appellants are, thus, before us.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the High Court committed a serious error of record in holding that the respondent herein had maintained a clean record for 28 years and in this connection drew our attention to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State before the Tribunal, wherein it had been pointed out that the respondent had on an earlier occasion been imposed punishments of ‘reduction in time scale of pay for one year’ and furthermore in another case was awarded the punishment of ‘Censure’.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that as the respondent did not commit any misconduct in discharge of his official duty, a case has been made out where doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. The disciplinary authority, learned counsel would submit, while exercising its statutory power of imposing punishment must act reasonably while exercising its jurisdiction. Reliance in this connection has been placed on Om Kumar & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. - 2001 2 SCC 386. It was further more pointed out that in England in stead and place of doctrine of ‘Irrationality’, the doctrine o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 65

Important PointWhere a misconduct of aiding an accused is committed by a police constable, who holds a position of trust and on whom the society looks forward as a protector of law, in such cases punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be wholly disproportionate.

Cases Referred (1)

Important Point
Where a misconduct of aiding an accused is committed by a police constable, who holds a position of trust and on whom the society looks forward as a protector of law, in such cases punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be wholly disproportionate.