RAM KISHAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 251 · Decided: 01-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM KISHAN 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 1, 1995 
K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
Se1vice Law: 
Delhi Police Act, 1978/Delhi 1'olice(Appointment and Rec1uitment) 
Rules. 1980/Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980/General C 
Clause Act, 1897: 
S. l l/r.4/r.6/s.19-Disciplinary proceedings-Punishment-Authoiity 
competent to award-Constable in Delhi police:-Misconduct by-Abusing 
Superior Officers-Dismissal from service-Order passed by Additional 
Deputy Commissioner of Police incharge of Police district-Held-Not void D 
or without auth01ity of law-Powers of Deputy Commissioner of Police can 
be exercised by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-However, im-
position of punishment of removal from service is harsh and disproportionate 
to gravity of misconduct-Dismissal order set aside-Direction given to im-
pose punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 
E 
The appellant, a police constable, was charged for: (1) facilitating an 
undertrial prisoner to drink alcohol before being taken to the court, and 
(2) abusing superior officers and creating an ugly scene in their presence. 
The inquiry officer found the first charge not to have been proved and the 
second partly proved. The disciplinary authority, namely, the Additional F 
Deputy Commissioner of Police, incharge of the police district, disagreeing 
with the inquiry officer, issued a notice to the appellant to show cause as 
to why both the charges should not be taken to have been proved; and on 
considering the explanation of the appellant dismissed him from service. 
Ultimately, the appellant filed a petition before the Central Administrative G 
Tribunai, which dismissed the same. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the · 
appeal by special leave. 
The appellant contended that the order was bad in law inasmuch as 
the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police was not the Deputy Com-
missioner of Police incharge of the district and as such was not competent H 
251 
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
to impose the penalty; the disciplinary authority did not give any reason 
in the show cause notice to disagree with the inquiry officer; and, even 
otherwise, the punishment imposed was disproportionate to alleged mis-
conduct. 
B 
c 
Allowing the appeal and modifying the punishment; this Court 
HELD : 1. Where a superior officer has been authorised to perform 
some dutie!i under an Act or a regulation, a subordinate or deputy officer 
lawfully performing those duties in the place of his superior is equally 
empowered to perform the duties of the office of the superior. Under r.4 
of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules 1980, not only 
the Deputy Commissioner but the Additional Deputy Commissioner also 
has been delegated the power of appointing Sub-Inspectors, Assistant Sub-
Inspectors, Head Constables and constables; and by the force of S.19 of 
the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Additional Commissioner of Police can 
exercise the powers of Deputy Commissioner of Police. The exercise of 
D power by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, incharge of the 
police district, with the aid of the Appointment and Recruitment Rules and 
the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980, in the instant case, 
can not be said to be without authority of law or void. [255-F -G; 256-B-D] 
E 
2.1. The purpose of the show cause notice, .in case of disagreement 
with the findings of the enquiry officer, is to enable the delinquent to show 
that the disciplinary authority is persuaded not to disagree with the 
conclusions reached by the inquiry officer for the reasons given in the 
inquiry report or he may offer additional reasons in support of the finding 
by the inquiry officer. In that situation, unless the disciplinary authority 
F 
gives specific reasons in the show cause on the basis of which the findings 
of the inquiry officer in that behalf is based, it would be difficult for the 
delinquent to satisfactorily give reasons to persuade the disciplinary 
authority to agree with the conclusions reached by the .inquiry officer. In 
the absence of any ground or reason in the show cause notice it amounts 
G to an empty formality which would cause grave prejudice to the delinquent 
officer and would result in injustice to him. The mere fact that in the final 
order some reasons have been given to disagree with the conclusions 
reached by the disciplinary authority cannot cure the defect. [25

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