PRITHIPAL SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 814 · Decided: 19-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PRITHIPAL SINGH 
v. 
ST A TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 19, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 31 I: 
Charges of grave misconduct-Dismissal of a Sub-Inspector of Police 
from service-Setting aside the order of dismissal, Appellate Authority directed 
completion of the departmental proceedings against the delinquent-Charges 
of misconduct not proved, hence, disciplinary proceeding against him was 
dropped by the Appellate Authority-Show Cause Notice-Order of the 
D Appellate Authority set aside by the Director General of Police-Filing of 
suit by the delinquent-Decreed by trial Court-Reversed by first Appellate 
Court-Second appeal dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Incumbent 
was a Government servant and thus entitled to protection under Article 
31 I-His services could be terminated only after affording him reasonable 
E opportunity of hearing in respect of charges framed against him-Jn terms 
of Clause (b) of 2nd Proviso to Clause (2), Article 31!, holding of an enquiry 
could be dispensed with by the Authority when it is not practicable to hold 
such an enquiry-Existence of such an exceptional situation must be shown 
to exist on the basis of relevant material-In the present case, even such a 
question did not arise as departmental proceeding had been held and the 
F incumbent not found guilty-Once he was exonerated of the charges, the 
question of issuing an order of dismissal against him without even conducting 
a formal enquiry, did not arise-Hence, the judgment of the High Court and 
also of the First Appellate Court are set aside and that of the trial Court is 
restored-Punjab Police Rules, 1934-Rule 16.28. 
G 
H 
On a charge of grave misconduct against the appellant-Sub-Inspector 
of Punjab Police that he had let off one smuggler after accepting money, a 
departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was dismissed from 
service. The Appellate Authority set aside the order of dismissal and directed 
8I4 
• 
PRITHIPAL SINGH v. STA TE OF PUNJAB 
815 
completion of the disciplinary proceeding against the errant employee. In A 
furtherance of the said direction, he was reinstated in service and the 
disciplinary proceeding against him followed. Since misconduct alleged 
against him was not proved, the disciplinary proceeding was dropped. Later, a 
show-cause notice was served upon him in terms of Rule 16.28 of the Punjab 
Police Rules, and after considering his reply, the Director General of Police B 
set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority, resulting in his 
dismissal from service. Aggrieved, he filed a suit, which was decreed by the 
trial Court. On an appeal preferred by the State, the first Appellate Court 
reversed the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, inter a/ia, 
holding that the Director General of Police had enough material before him 
to pass the order impugned in the suit. The second appeal filed by him C 
thereagainst has been dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Appellant was a Government servant. He was entitled to the 
protection as envisaged under A.rticle 311 of the Constitution of India. His D 
services could, therefore, be terminated only by an Authority competent in 
that behalf, upon being informed of the charges and after giving him a 
reasonable opportunity of hearing in respect thereof. Clause (b) of 2nd Proviso 
appended to Article 311 of the Constitution, however, provides for dispensation 
of such enquiry where the Authority empowered to dismiss or remove an E 
employee or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for reasons to be recorded 
in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry. (818-F, G) 
1.2. Once in the disciplinary proceedings appellant-employee was 
exonerated of the charges framed against him, 1the question of taking recourse 
to Clause (b) of 2nd Proviso appended to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the F 
Constitution of India did not and could not arise. Although, the same had been 
duly noticed by the Trial Judge, it failed to receive due attention of the Appellate 
Court as also of the High Court The very purpose, for which the said provision 
was enacted, had lost its relevance once a departmental proceeding was held. 
The Director General of Police, while passing the order which had resulted G 
in the dismissal of the appellant, furthermore failed to take into consideratio

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