State and Others vs Muni Lal

S.J. Vazifdar, Acting C.J—Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant admitted that the questions upon which the matter was referred to Division Bench have been answered against the appellant by the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 16.11.2011 in the case of Ravinder Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, Civil Appeal No. 1843 of 2007. By an order dated 12.11.1991, the learned single Judge stated that in view of the apparent conflict between the judgments referred in RSA No. 872 of 1986 dated 15.01.1988 in the case of Punjab State and others v. Sital Singh and in State of Punjab v. Ram Sarup, 1985 (2) SLR 369, the appeal is admitted to D.B. The order of reference does not formulate the question(s) of law. The following questions of law were tendered by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants which are as under:--

"1. Whether the Additional Superintendent of Police is competent to pass orders of forfeiture of approved service with permanent effect with regard to Head Constable in the Police Department as per Punjab Police Rules, 1934?

Whether the word Superintendent of Police as per Rule 1.8 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 also includes any other Superintendent of Police including Additional Superintendent of Police other than the executive Head of the Distt. Police Force?

Whether the Superintendent of Police as mentioned in Rule 12.1 and 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules 1934 includes any other Superintendent of Police including Additional Superintendent of Police empowering appointment in case of Constables and Head Constables including power of inflicting punishment?

Whether mentioning of the word Superintendents in Rule 1.8, 12.1, and 16.1 in the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 signifies being plural in nature and thus includes all Superintendent of Police in the Distt. Including Additional Superintendent of Police?"

The question that fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the Additional Superintendent of Police would enjoy the same powers, jurisdiction and competence to discharge the functions and duties of the Superintendent of Police, who was the appointing authority for the post of Constable and then to issue an order of dismissal of the Constable so appointed by the Superintendent of Police. The question of competence, therefore, even in this case of the Additional Superintendent of Police must be decided on the same basis as the judgment of the Supreme Court. The above questions are, therefore, answered in the negative. The matter before the learned single Judge shall be disposed of accordingly. The office is directed to place the RSA before the learned single Judge for disposal in accordance with this judgment and order and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court.