STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus NACHHATTAR SINGH

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 822 · Decided: 30-04-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
v. 
NACHHATTAR SINGH 
\ -'>-. 
APRIL 30, 1990 
B 
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.] 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Section JOO-Second Appeal-
Serious question of law involved-High Court not to dismiss the appeal 
T 
in limine. 
c 
Punjab Police Rules, 1934: Rule 16.2(2)-Police Officer-Con-
viction of-Dismissal from service-Suit challenging dismissal-Period 
of limitation-What is. 
The respondent, a constable, convicted under sections 325 /34 of 
the Indian Penal Code along with another co-accused constable and 
D 
dismissed from service, filed a suit challenging his dismissal, which was 
dismissed by the trial court holding that it was barred by limitation. On 
appeal the First Appellate Court decreed his suit by holding that the 
respondent-plaintiff was discriminated because his co-accused was 
re-instated in service pursuant to the decision in the suit filed by the 
co-accused; his dismissal was void on the ground of arbitrariness, and 
E 
the bar of limitation was not applicable. 
The defendant-appellant filed a regular second appeal against the 
aforesaid decree before the High Court which was dismissed in limine. 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appel-
F 
lant that the High Court erred in dismissing the second appeal in 
limine. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: I. Serious questions of law are involved in this case and 
G 
they should not have been lightly brushed aside by the High Court in the 
manner it has been done. Therefore the High Court erred in dismissing 
the second appeal in limine. [824F; 825D) 
2. Rule 16.2 (2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 mandatorily 
directs that a police officer judicially sentenced to rigorous imprison-
H 
ment exceeding one month shall be dismissed, and this mandate of law 
822 
J 
' ~ 
I 
--" 
-
/ 
.....->-. 
"' 
-
' 
i 
--t-
STATE OF PUNJAB v. NACHHATTAR SINGH [SHARMA, J.] 
823 
cannot be -ignored on the ground that in the case of another member of 
the police force a mistake was committed. [824F] 
3. The appellant's assertion that the respondent's co-accused who 
was ·reinstated in service pursuant to the Court's decision was subse-
quently dismissed has not been denied by the respondent. The case is, 
A 
therefore, remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal. [824G; 82SD] 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4055 
of 1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.8.1987 of the Punjab 
and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 2092 of 1987. 
C.M. Nayar for the Appellants. 
R.P. Agarwal and U.S. Prasad for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHARMA, J. This appeal of the State of Punjab by special leave 
arises out of a suit filed by the respondent, Nachhattar Singh. The 
plaintiff-respondent was serving the State Police as a constable when 
an incident took place on 17 .2.1971, which led to the prosecution of 
the plaintiff along with the Head Constable Kahan Singh and the Sub-
Inspector Baldev Singh. The charge made against the plaintiff was that 
he physically assaulted and detained one Gurdial Singh. The accused 
were tried and Baldev Singh was acquitted. So far the plaintiff and 
Kahan Singh were concerned, they were found guilty under s. 325 read 
with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and several other sections, and 
were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months each. The 
conviction was maintained up to the Supreme Court stage. The Senior 
Superintendent of Police, Patiala, thereafter dismissed the plaintiff on 
20.4.1976. This order of dismissal was challenged as illegal in the pre-
sent suit which was instituted on 6.11.1982. 
2. Besides taking several technical objections, the suit was 
defended on merits, as well as on the ground of limitation. From the 
judgment of the trial court it appears that only two questions were 
pressed by the parties, namely, whether the suit was barred by limita-
tion and whether the order of dismissal was illegal on the ground that 
the plaintiff was not served with a show cause notice before the 
impugned order was passed. Both the issues were decided by the learned 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
824 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 
A Subordinate Judge against the plaintiff and the suit was accordingly 
dismissed. 
3. The plaintiff appealed against the decision. It appears that 
before the Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal, it was 
contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the other accused constable 
B Kahan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.