Baldev Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

The Petitioner Baldev Singh, who was a Constable in Punjab Police,, stands dismissed,--vide order, dated 11th August, 1983, Annexure P. 3. His appeal to D.I.G. and further revision to I.G., Punjab were also dismissed,--vide orders, dated 27th December, 1983 and 9th March, 1984 respectively.

Counsel for the Petitioner has canvassed that there had been non-compliance with Rules 16.2 and 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules of 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Relevant portion of Rule 16.2 of the Rules is in the following terms:

16.2 (1) Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest act of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension.

It has been urged that neither the order of the punishing, authority nor the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities indicated that the factum of length of service and his right to pension had been kept in view while imposing the punishment. That means that the authorities concerned were oblivious of the provisions of Rule 16.2 and so the order of dismissal stands vitiated. Support was sought for the aforesaid submission from a single Bench judgment of this Court reported as Gurdev Singh v. State of Haryana 1976 (2) S.L.R. 442. Pointed attention was drawn to the following observations of Koshal J., as he then was:

The impugned order is vitiated by another illegality. According to the sub-rule, the punishing authority is duty bound to take into consideration the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension before it can award the penalty of dismissal. The relevant part of the sub-rule is mandatory in character and an order passed in disregard of it cannot be upheld.

With respect, we find ourselves unable to concur in the view of the learned Judge. So we do hereby overrule the decision rendered in Gurdev Singh''s case (supra). Relevant portion of Rule 16.2(i) is in the nature of guidance to the punishing authority, i.e., punishing authority has, to be alive to the aforesaid aspect. However, merely from the fact that neither of the concerned authority has expressly made a mention of the requirement of the said sub-rule would not show that the concerned authority was not alive either to the length of the service of the offender or his claim to pension. It is to be assumed that the concerned authority while passing the order must have applied its mind to the requirement of Rule 16.2 and it is not necessary for the authority to make an express reference to the requirement of the said rule in its order.

Regarding non-compliance with Rule 16.24, it was canvassed that the punishing authority had not given oral hearing before passing the order of dismissal. He sought support for the above view from a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Siri Ram v. The State of Punjab 1967 S.L.R. 578. While dealing with the submission that there has been non-compliance with Rule 16.24, the learned Counsel pin pointed Clause (ix) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 16.24 which is in the following terms:

16.24 (1) The following procedure shall be followed in departmental enquiries:

** ** **

(ix) No order of dismissal or reduction in rank shall be passed by an officer empowered to dismiss a police officer or reduce him in rank until that officer has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him, provided that this shall not apply:

(a) Where a police officer is dismissed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or

(b) Where the officer empowered to dismiss him or reduce in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that officer in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to give to that police officer an opportunity of showing cause. Before an order of dismissal or reduction in rank is passed the. officer to be punished shall be produced before the officer empowered to punish him, and shall be informed of the charges proved against him, and called upon to show cause why an order of dismissal or reduction in rank should, not be passed. Any representation that he may make shall be recorded, shall form part of the record of the case and shall be taken into consideration by the Officer empowered to punish him before the final order is passed;

Provided that if, owing to the complicated nature of the case or other sufficient reason to be recorded, the officer empowered to impose the punishment considers this procedure is appropriate, he may inform the officer to be punished in writing of the charges proved against him and call upon him to show cause in writing why an order of dismissal or reduction in rank should not be passed. Any written representation received shall be placed on the record of the case and taken into consideration before the final order is passed.

The ratio of the aforesaid D. B. decision is not attracted to the present case. The Division Bench proceeded on the assumption that the personal hearing was a must because the stand of the State was also this that personal hearing had been given to the Petitioner. The Bench found as a fact that personal hearing in the case was a mere farce as the order of dismissal had already been passed.

Perusal of the aforesaid rule would show that before an order of dismissal of reduction in rank is passed, the offender shall be produced before the officer empowered to punish him who shall inform him of the charges proved against him and call upon to show cause why an order of dismissal or reduction in rank should not be passed. The proviso makes an exception in a case where the matter is of complicated nature. In that eventuality the show-cause notice has to given in writing and any representation that may be received is be considered by the punishing authority.

The grievance appears to be that instead of serving a show-cause notice in writing, the Petitioner should have been told of the same verbally and should have been verbally asked as to what he had to say. Surely the procedure envisaged by the proviso is more satisfactory. Further, the perusal of the Clause (ix) would show that it has hot envisaged any personal hearing at all. What it envisages is that the punishing authority would summon the delinquent officer, tell him the charge that has been proved against him and ask him verbally to show cause and whatever he states verbally that is to be reduced in writing which would form part of the record and shall be taken into consideration.

For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.