CHANNABASAPPA BASAPPA HAPPALI versus STATE OF MYSORE

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 645 · Decided: 16-10-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
CHANNABASAPPA BASAPPA HAPPALI 
v. 
STATE OF MYSORE 
October 16, 1970 
[M. llu>AYATULLAH, C.J. AND A. N. RAY, J.] 
645 
Departmental Proceedings-Admission of fGcts-Whether amounts to 
plea of guilt. 
Departmental enquiry 
was started against the appellant 
a police 
constable on the charges that he remained absent from duty without 
leave or permission as he stayed beyond the sanctioned leave and that 
he did go on fast contrary to the discipline of the police force, 
In reply 
to questions by the Enquiring Officer, the appellant admitted all the 
relevant facts. 
HELD : The admission of the facts by the appellant amounted to a 
plea Of guilty on the f~cts on which the appellant was charged. 
The 
police constable here was not on his trial for a criminal offence. It was 
a departmental enquiry, on facts, of which due notice was given to him. 
He admitted the facts. 
There was no distinction between admission of 
facts and admission of guilt. When he admitted the facts, he was guilty. 
The facts speak for themselves. It was a clear case of indiscipline and 
nothing less. 
If a police officer remains absent without leave and also 
resorts to fast as a demonst'ration against the action ·of the superior officer 
the indiscipline is fully established. [647 H, 648 CJ 
Jagdish PrDBad Saxena. v. State of Madhya Bharat (now Madhya Pra-
desh), A.I.R. 1961 S.C. !070, distinguished. 
Regina v. Durham Quarter Sessions, Ex-parte Virgo, [1952] 2 Q.B.D. I 
referred to. 
CML APPELLATE 1URISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 485 of 
1967. 
. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
February 25, 1966 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Second 
Appeal No. 84 of 1962. 
S. S. JavaH and A. G. Rat1f1Jparkhi, for the appellant. 
G 
Shyamala Pappu and ~· P. Nayar, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, C.J. The appellant files his appeal by special 
leave against the judgment of !he learned Single Judge of the 
Mysore High Court, February 25, 1966, by which the appeal of 
H 
the State Government in a civil matter was allowed and the order 
of dismissal of the appellant who is a former police. constable was 
confirmed. 
His cross-objection was dismissed. 
I4-cIA36SupCI/71 
·--
646 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1971] 2 S.C.R. 
The appellant was a police constable serving in the. Dharwar 
District. 
He joined the police force on August 1, 1945 in the 
former State of Bombay. On the States Reorganisation, he came 
under the jurisdiction of the State of Mysore and it was on Novem-
ber 26, l 953 that he was dismissed after a departmental enquiry 
against him on the following facts. The petitioner had proceeded 
on leave for a month from January !, 1953. On January 26, 
1953, he applied for extension of leave for a month. A reply was 
received by him refusing leave, but only on February 21, 1953. 
He made a second application for extension of leave on the same 
date, but this extension of leave was not granted. 
On February 
26, 1 ~53, he undertook a 7 days' fast at a temple situated three 
miles from Dharwar and wrote letters to his superior officers to 
which ive shall refer presently. A charge was framed against him 
under three heads which were that he was guilty of serious mis-
conduct and indisciplinary action in that he remained absent from 
duty without leave or permission from January 1, 1953, that he 
had sent letters to his superior officers intimating his intention to 
go on fast with effect from February 26. 1953 "for the upliftment 
of the country etc." and that h~ had sent copies of these letters to 
several newspapers also. The third charge was that he did go on 
fast on February 26, 1953 and continued it ti!! March 5, 1953 
at the temple contrary to the. discipline of the police force. 
He 
was duly served with these charges and was also asked to obtain 
such copies from the record as he needed for his defence and to 
bring a friend to defend him if he liked. When the enquiry com-
n\enced, he. was put a few questions by the enquiring officer which 
may be referred to ir. detail. 
Q. (I) Have you received a copy of the charge sheet ? 
A. Yes. 
Q. (2) Have you understood the Charges ? 
A. Yes. 
Q. (3) Do you accept the charges framed against you ? 
A. Yes. 
Q. ( 4) Have you anything to say for breaking the discipline 
of the Police Force? 
A. I had been on leave for one month. I applied to the Sub 
Inspector for the extension of my leave by another month. 
I 
thought that m

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.