R. P. KAPUR versus PRATAP SINGH KAIRON & OTHERS

Citation: [1964] 4 S.C.R. 204 · Decided: 02-08-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1963 
August, 2 
204 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964} 
R. P. KAPUR 
I . 
PRATAP SINGH KAIRON & OTHERS 
(S. K. DAs, AcTING C.J., A. K. SARKAR, K. N. WANcHoo, 
. K. c. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.) 
Civil Servant-Enquiry under Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 
1850-0rder of enquiry whether competent when First Informa-
tion Report a!ready filed under Code of Criminal Procedure-Mean-
ing of "misbehaviour" in Inquiries Act-Differences in procedure 
between enquiry under Public Servants (Inquiries) Act and All 
India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 whether violate 
Constitution, Art. 14-Articles 16 and 20(3)-0rder of Government 
if malafide-Public Servant Inquiries Act, 1850, s. 2-All India 
Services (Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1955-Code of Criminal 
Procedure, ss. 5, 154-Constitution of India Arts. 14, 16 and 20(3). 
The appellant jointed the Indian Civil Service in 1938. 
He 
continued in the service after the independence of India and since 
1948 has been serving the Government of Punjab. In July, 1959, 
When he was serving as Commissioner, Ambala Division, he was 
placed under suspension. A few months before that, two criminal 
cases had been instituted against him. 
Several other cases were 
instituted against the appellant and some of his relations during 
the year 1960. The criminal cases which were pending in the courts 
of different Magistrates in the Punjab \Vere transferred to Criminal 
Courts subordinate to the Allahabad High Court by the orders of 
this Court. Two of those cases had to be dropped by the orders 
of Additional District Magistrate, Saharanpur. 
The cases started 
on the complaint of Dhingra arnl report of Daryo Singh were 
consigned to record as untraced by the orders of the Magistrate 
on May, 25, 1961. 
On May 26, 1961, an order was passed in the name of the Gover-
nor of Punjab directing an enquiry against the appellant under the 
Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850. Some of the charges were in 
respect of the acts alleged against the appellant in the complaint 
of Dhingra and the other charges were in respect of the acts- alleged 
against him in the report of Daryao Singh. By 3nother order of the 
same date, the Governor appointed Mr. Justice D. Falshaw, then 
a puisne Judge of Punjab High Court, as Commissioner for holding 
the enquiry. Notice was duly served on the appellant and he was 
informed that the enquiry would begin on August 28, 1961. On 
July 18, 1961, the appellant filed a writ petition under Art. 226 
of the Constitution praying for an order striking down the order 
of the Government for making the enquiry against him. 
The 
High Court rejected all the contentions raised by the appellant and 
dismissed the writ petition. The appellant came to this Court by 
special leave. 
' ) 
( 
-
,,.. 
-
-
• 
J 
4 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
205 
The contention of the appellant before this Court was that 
no enquiry could be held under the Inquiries Act in as much as 
the First Information Reports had already been lodged under the 
Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the acts mentioned in the 
articles of charge, that Section 2 of the Inquiries Act was bad as 
the word "misbehaviour" was too vague and the section gave the 
Government uncontrolled and uncanalised power to subject Govern-
ment Servants to enquiry under the Act, that an enquiry under the 
Inquiries Act was more drastic and less ,advantageous to an officer 
in the position of appellant than an enquiry that could he held 
against an officer in a similar position under the All-India Services 
(Discipline and Appeol) Rules, 1955, and thus resulted in infringe-
ment of Article 14 of the Constitution, th::i.t the Inquiries Act 
violated Articles 16 and 20( 3) of the Constitution and \Vas there· 
fore invalid and that the Government had acted ma/a fide in order· 
ing the enquiry. 
Held, that. in most case:;, it would be proper and reasonable 
for Governmer:t to a\vait the result of the police investigation and 
where the inYestigation is follovved by an enquiry or trial, the result 
of such enquiry or trial, before deciding to take disciplinary action 
against any of its servants. It V\.'ould be proper and reasonable also, 
generally, for Government not to take action against a Government 
servant w·hen on investigation by the police it is found that no prinia 
facic case had been made out. 
Even though this appears to be a 
reasonable course which will ordinarily be followed by Government 
there is 

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