LexBHAGAT SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
State of U. P. v. Deomati Upadhyaya llidayatullah j. July I. 64 SUPREME COGRT REPORTS [1961] of Criminal Procedure in so fa.r a.a " tha.t section relates to s. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act" a.re intra vires a.nd do not offend Art. 14 of the Oon~titu tion. Tho order of the High Court acquitting the respondent is a.lso set a.side a.nd the order of the CourL of Sessions convicting the 11ccused (respondent) under s. 302 of the India.n Pena.I Codo and sentencing him to <lea.th is restored. Appeal allowed. BHAGAT SIKGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB (P. B. GAJENDBAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYA'rULLAH, K. C. DAS GUPTA, a.nd J. c. SHAH, JJ.) Government Servant-Dismissal-Member of subordinate rank of police forces-Police officer committing offence-Departmental enquiry and dismissal-V a!idity-Dismissal from service without fresh shew cause notice-Legality-Police Act, 186t (V of 186t), ss. 29, 35-Government of India Act, 1935 (z5 <So :z6 Geo. 5, Ch. 42), SS. 240(3), 243. The appellant, who was employed in the Punjab Police, was found while working as a Police Censor to have detained certain letters illegally and later to have made use of copies and photo- graphs of them for blackmail. lie was consequently revqted to his substantive post of head constable on January 14, 1944· Thereafter an enquiry was started against him by the Superin- tendent of Police and eventua!Jy he was dismissed frorn service on January 25, 1944· His representations to higher authorities having failed he instituted a suit challenging the legality of the order of dismissal on the grounds, inter alia, (1) thats. 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. had not been complied with, and (2) that as the appellant was alleged to have committed a criminal offence the Superintendent of Police could not hold a departmental enquiry in respect of sucli allegations in view of ss. 29 and 35 of the Police Act, l!lbr. Held : (1) thats. 243 of the Government of India Act, i935, - 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 65 . \v hich was a special provision with regard to the subordinate ranks of police forces in India, excluded the operation of s. 240(3t of the Act to the appellant, who was, therefore, governed by the conditions of service as provided under the Police Regulations, and that the substance of s. 240(3) which was brought into the Police Regulations in September 1946 long after the appellant had been dismissed was not ·applicable to him. Accordingly, he was not entitled to the seco.nd notice, under s. 240(3), giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause aga:inst ·_the action proposed t.o be taken in regard to him. North-West Frontier Province v. Swaj Narain Anand [1948] F.C.R. 103 and High Commissioner for India and High Commis- sioner for Pakistan v. I. M. Lal, [1948] F.C.R. 44, referred .to. . (2) that. the provisions of the Police Act." 1861, relating to offences committed by a police officer above the rank of a cons- table do not bar .a departmental enquiry .in respect of a matter where it is also possible to prosecute such an officer under that · Act. b1vIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1957. Appeal by . special leave from the judgment and decree dated November 29, 1954, of the"Punjab High _} 0ourt in Regular Second Appeal No. 891of1951. Hardayal Hardy and N. N. Keswa"ni, for the appel- lant. . · N, S. Bindra and D. Gupta, for the respQndent., .1960 . .Tuly 21. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by _ Ig6o Bhagat Singh v. The.State of Punjab WANOHOO J.-This is an: appeal by spedal leave Wanchoo J. against the judgment of the Punjab High Court • in a service matter. The b~ief f1J,cts necessary for present purposes a.re that' the lJ.ppellant was appointed ·as a. foot-constable in 1931 in the Punjab Police and.was dismissed on J anua.ry 25, 1944. Shortly before, he was 11.cting as al) Assistant Sub.Inspector and actually work- ing as a Police Censor. The charge against h.im Was that whi)e he was· working as Police Censor, he detain- ed certain letters illegally and had copies and photo. graphs· ma.de of them and later used these copies and photographs for blackmail. He was .consequently reverted to his substantive post of head constable on 9 Thf Sta!1 'Jj ~l..l'REME COl1HT REPORTS [ 1961 J January 14, 1944. Thereafter on January 21, 1944, an enquiry wits st artcd against him by the Superin- tendent of Poliec and he was eventually dismi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.