BISHAN SINGH AND ORS.
A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
AUTUST 30, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)
B
Seivice Law :
Punjab Police Rules :
Rule 16(2)--Dismissal from service-Members of Police C
F orce-G1ievance of inadequate accommodation-Peaceful march after duty
hours, to represent to the Supelintendent of Police, despite prohibit01y orders
in f orce--Suit filed for declaration that the dismissal order was null and
void-Suit decreed-Appeal dismissed-High Court reversed the decisions
and dismissed the suit-On appeal, held, though prohibiting order was via-
D
lated, appellants marched peacefully to -make representation-it cannot be
said that they have committed misconduct warranting extreme penalty of
dismissal from seivice-Hence the order set aside-State directed to impose
penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. ·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12020 of E
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.91 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in RS.A. No. 2260 of 1980.
K. Sultan Singh and R.M. Misra for the Appellants.
Manoj Swarup for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
F
G
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order
dated May 7, 1991 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at .Chandigarh
made in RSA No. 2260/80. The admitted facts are that three appellants H
403
404
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
along with 27 others had gone in a procession, in spite Qf the prohibitory
order, to represent, to the Superintendent of Police at his residence, their
grievance of inadequate accommodation and other facilities not provided
to them. That was done after their duty was over in the evening. For the
making of such representation and for violating the prohibitory order, an
B
enquiry was conducted against the three appellants who had taken initiative
and led the procession, making a charge that they were guilty of grave
misconduct under Rule 16 (2) of the Punjab Police Rules which is held to
have been proved; resultantly, they were dismissed from service. The order
of dismissal was confirmed on appeal. Thereafter, the appellants filed suit
for declaration that the order of dismissal was null and void and inopera-
C tive; the suit was decreed on April 7, 1979. On appeal, it was dismissed
on February 20, 1980. In the second appeal, the High Court reversed the
decisions and dismissed the suit. Thus this appeal by special leave.
It is true that the appellants are disciplined members of the Police
force. The grievance of inadequate accommodation provided to them is a
D legitimate grievance to be represented to the officer for its redressal. No
doubt, prohibitory order was issued and their is violation thereof; however,
the appellants marched peacefully to make their representation. Under
these circumstances, it cannot be said that they have committed misconduct
warranting extreme penalty of dismissal from service. Accordingly, the
E
order of the High Court is set aside. However, the respondents are directed
to impose P.enalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellants are entitled to
reinstatement with all the consequential benefits. No costs.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
Lex