STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus BALWINDER SINGH

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 330 · Decided: 16-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF PUNJAB A1'JD ORS. 
v. 
BALWINDER SINGH 
FEBRUARY 16, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND TARlflli CHATTERJEE, JJ.) 
Service law: 
Dismissal-Employe! promoted as Head constable by DIG--Dismissal 
C from service by Superintendent of Police, for absenting without leave--
Challenged on the grouna that dismissal order could be passed by DIG only 
and not Superintendent of Police- Held: Matter remanded back for fresh 
consideration as the Se,.,,ice Rules were not considered by High Court-
Punjab Police Rules-Chapter XII-Rules 12./, 13.3(/), (2), 13.8(1). 
D 
Respondent was appointed as Constable and was promoted as Head 
Constable by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG). He remained 
absent from duty for a l·~ng period. Enquiry officer found him guilty and 
consequently on the bas is of report of Enquiry officer, Superintendent of 
Police dismissed him from service. He preferred an appeal to the DIG, 
E which was also dismissed. He filed a suit for declaration that the order of 
dismissal and order of DIG were not proper, taking plea that the 
promotion was given by DIG, he alone was competent authority to dismiss 
him and not Superintendent of Police. Trial Court decreed the suit. First 
and second appeal wer1~ also dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Jn support of its case, State referred to the Punjab Police Rules, 
Chapter XII relating to appointments and enrolments and submitted that 
the Superintendent ha!. the authority to grant the promotion. 
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court for 
G fresh consideration, the Court 
H 
HELD: I. The Pumjab Police Rules were not considered by the High 
Court. Had these been considered, the High Court would have been in a 
better position to appreciate the rival stands. [332-G I 
330 
,.... 
---\. 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BALWIN DER SINGH [PASAYAT. J.] 
3J 1 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5625 of2002. A 
From the Final Order & Judgment and Order dated 5.7.2001 of Punjab 
and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 81/1999. 
Arun K. Sinha, Rakesh Singh and Mukesh Kumar Sinha for the 
Appellant. 
B 
R.K. Talwar, Amit Talwar, and S.L. Aneja for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. The State of Punjab and its functionaries are C 
the appellants in this appeal, directed against the final order and judgment 
dated 05.07.2001 passed in a Regular Second Appeal by a learned Single 
Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 
The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. 
D 
The respondent filed a Suit for a declaration that the, order dated 
05.04.1995 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, PAP, Jalandhar 
Cantt whereby his appeal was dismissed and the order dated 31.08.1994 
passed by the Commandant, 13th Bn. PAP, Jalandhar Cantt dismissing him 
from service were not in order. The Commandant in departmental proceedings 
held that his absence from duty during the periods 08.02.1994 to 16.03.1994 E 
and from 19.04.1994 to 24.02.1994 was to be treated as non duty and the 
period of suspension was to be held to have merged for all practical purposes. 
Respondent filed a Suit. His grievance was that the orders were in violation 
of the service rules, violative or principles of natural justice and, therefore, 
he was entitled to a declaration that he continued to serve the department as F 
Head Constable, as was the position before 31.08.1994 with consequential . 
reliefs. His case, as reflected in the plaint was that he was appointed as 
Constable on 27.07 .1981 and was promoted as Head Constable in June, 1990. 
He remained absent on account of his ailment and went to his village for 
treatment after informing the Incharge Officer. An enquiry was conducted on 
the ground that he had unauthorisedly remained absent from duty. The enquiry G 
officer had found him guilty and consequently, on the basis of the report of 
the enquiry officer, which was accepted by the disciplinary authority, he was 
dismissed from service on 31.08.1994. The appeal to the Deputy Inspector 
General of Police was also dismissed. The State of Punjab filed written 
statement and raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainablility of the H 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006 J 2 S.C.R. 
A Suit. On merits, it was statt:d that he was recruited as a Constable. He was .. 
promoted as Head Constable. The authority who had ordered his dismissal 
was the competent authority. This plea was raised to co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.