MOHAMMAD ABDUL SALAM KHAN versus SARFARAZ AHMAD KHAN & OTHERS

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 860 · Decided: 05-03-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

860 
MOHAMMAD ABDUL SALAM KHAN 
v. 
SARFARAZ AHMAD KHAN & OTHERS 
March 5, 1975 
[A. N. RAY, CJ., K. K. MATHEW, v. R. KRISHNA IYER, 
AND A c. GUPTA., JJ.] 
U.P. Town Areas Act, (II of 1914) s, 6K-.Scope of-Dismissed Govem-
.111mt serwmr-Jf could be elected as Chairman of Town Area Commillee-
Di.tmissal-Mea11i11g of. 
Punjab Police Rules-Rule 16(2) (iii)-Scope of-Publication of dismissal 
i11 Police Gazette--Ef]ect of. 
Section 6·K of the U.P. Town Areas Act proviqes that a person, notwith· 
standing that he is otherwise quali~ed, sbaH be disq1:1alifie? for. being. ch.osen 
.as, and f'or being a member or Chairman of a Committee 1f he 1s 3: dts!lllssed 
servant of a local authority, the State or Central Government and 1s debarred 
fr.om re·employment therein. 
Rule 16(2) (iii) of the Punjab Police 
Rul7s, 
which apply to respondent No. 1 at the rel~vant t'me, states that when a pohce 
·officer is convicted judicially and dismissed, or dismissed as .a result of a depart-
mental enquiry, the conviction and dismissal and lls cause shall be publisher! 
in the PoEce Gazette. In other cases of dismissal when it is desired to ensure 
that the officer dismissed shall not be re.employed elsewhere, a full descriptive 
roll, with particul:irs of the punishments. shall be sent for publication in the 
"Police Gazett~. 
· 
The first respondent, a dismissed police' constable. was elected as Chairman 
of the Town Arca Committee. The appellant. who was the defeated cand:date, 
assailed the election of the respondent. 'The Election. Tribunal constituted under 
th'e U.P. Town Areas Act set aside the election and declared the appellant as 
·the Chairman. Jn a writ petition under Art. 226, a single Judge of the High 
Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal as regards the election of the respon-
dent No. I but in relation. to the relief directed against the declaration of the 
appellant as Chairman. 
A Division Bench of the H:gh Court allowed the appeal of respondent No. I 
holdinl!: that s. 6-K spoke of two components, namely, (a) dismissal and (b) 
being debarred from re-employment and since the second ingredient 
was 
not 
priesent in the order of termination against the constable, the formula for dis-
qualificat'on was not fulfilled. 
' Allowinl!: the appeal, 
HEL~ : (I) There is no escape from the conclusion that the hrst respond1:nt 
was punished under the former part of r. 16(2) (iii) and incurred the extreme 
wrath of the law i.nclud!ng ~isbarment from re-employment. 
Logically, there-
fore, he suffered d1squahficahon under s. 6-K of the Act and the Tr:bunal in 
Temoving him from Chairmanship, acted legally. [866 F] 
· 
~ction 7 of the Polici: Act spe~ks of dismissal as a single category 
of 
pumsh!11ent, not as two twigs from the same branc)l, that is, dism'ssal wit/rout 
?~:I 'fl!llh ,en:ibargo on re-entry mto State service. When s. 7 uses the express10n 
d1sm1ssal • 1t ~ust be deemed to have conveyed the official semantics attached 
.10 that express10n, namely, removal from §ervice plus a ban on re-employment 
by, the State. 'f!le non-enume~at!on of 'rC'!Joval' as a distinct form of punbh-
mt.n! ~oes not divest the appo:ntmg authonty from exercising, subject to legal 
rest~1cl!ons, the i;io111:er to remove from service without inflicting the more serious 
punishment of d1sm1ssal. [864 C; F] 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ABDUL SALAM V. AHMAD ~N 
861 
(2) The words 'dismissal' and 'r<:moval' h.ave one distinction, namely, tbat 
the former di5qualifies from futm·e employment while the 
latter does not. 
Therefore, dismissal is removal with .i prohib~tion super-added. [864 H; 865 DJ 
Kliem Chand v. Union of India [1958) S.C.R. 1080, 1089 and Shyamlal's 
case, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 369, 374, referred to. 
(3) (a) "Dismissal" removes the man from his office and super-adds debar-
~ent from re-employme~t. Such being its meaning in the Indian ConsUution, 
~~ . the. rel~,vant rules wh~ch have been in force in this country over the decades 
. d1sm1ssal 
has to be )Jnderstood, as punishment imposed upon the constable. 
m this case, as one which embodies the latent penalty of disability from being 
re-e_mployed. [866 BJ 
(b) Rule 16(2) (iii) does not state "in other cases of dismissal" the bar 
against re-<:mployment operates only where there is publication in the Police, 
Gazette to that effect. Dismissal, as such, carries with it this additional penalty 
in both. classes of cases but in the first category covered by the rule, p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.