STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus RAM SINGH EX. CONSTABLE

Citation: [1992] 3 S.C.R. 634 · Decided: 24-07-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
v. 
RAM SINGH EX. CONSTABLE 
JULY 24, 1992 
B 
(A.M. AHMADI, M.M. PUNCHHI, AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Civil Services : Punjab Police Manuai 1934 : 
Vol-II Rule 16.2( 1 )-Dismissal for gravest acts of misconduct-Miscon-
c duct-what is-Police personnal on duty found heavily drnnlc-Held-Mis-
conduct. 
The respondent while working as Gunman of the Deputy Commis-
sioner of Police was dismissed from service by order dated 'February 11, 
D 
1980 on the charge that he was found heavily drunk and roaming at the 
bus stand wearing the service revolver. Traffic Constable brought him to 
the police station and the revolver was deposited in the malkhana. When 
the respondent was sent for medical examination, he was declared as 
heavily drunk. An enquiry was conducted as per prescribed procedure in 
this behalf and found him to have contravened Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab 
E 
Police Manual 1934 Vol. I. The Departmental appeal ended against the 
respondent. 
Thereon the respondent filed the suit for declaration that the said 
order was null & void, unconstitutional, illegal ultravires and opposed to 
the . principles of natural justice. He sought for consequential relief of 
F 
reinstatement and other benefits. 
The trial Court decreed the said suit and the appeal was affirmed 
stating that the order of dismissal was vitiated by not giving reasonable 
opportunity due to non supply of the documents and the disciplinary 
G authority did not keep in view the mandatory provisions of Rule 16.2(1) of 
the Rules. 
The High Court in second appeal held that the enquiry was not 
vitiated but affirmed the decree on the ground, that Rule 16.2(1) con-
templates that the dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of 
H misconduct. Taking drink is a single act and is not a gravest act, so the 
634 
)..--
,.___ 
-
r-
--
STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAM SINGH 
635 
--{ 
Superintendent of Police was not alive to the mandate of Rule 16.2(1) which ti 
envisdges dismissal only for gravest acts of misconduct and the respondent 
had put in 17 years of service and would have qualified for pension after 
putting another 3 to 4 years of service and that was not kept in view. 
Granting the special leave setting aside the decree of the courts below 
B 
restoring the dismissal order, the Court, 
HELD: That the word misconduct is though not capable of precise 
~ 
definition, its reflection received connotation from the context. The deliquen-
cy in performance and its effect in the discipline and nature of duty. It may 
involve moral terpitudes it must be improper or wrong behaviour, unlawful c 
behaviour willful in character, a forbidden act, a transgression of estab-
-
lished and definite rule of action or Code of Conduct. But not mere error of 
judgment carelessness and negligence in performance of duty. Its ambit has 
to be construed as to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks 
-~ 
to serve. The police service is a disciplined service and its requires to main- o 
tain strict-discipline causing serious effect in the maintenance of Law and 
Order. (639 E-G] (Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition P.999. P. 
... 
Ramanatha Aiyer's Law Lexicon, Rep1int Edition 1987 P .821 referred). 
Rule 16.2(1) Consists of two parts. The first part is referable to 
gravest-acts of misconduct entailing orders of dismissal; undoubtedly there E 
,... 
is a distinction between gravest misconduct and grave misconduct so before 
~f 
awarding the dismissal order it shall be mandatory that such order should 
be made only when there are gravest acts of misconduct and that too when it 
impinges the pensionary rights of the deliquent. Thus though the first part 
relates to gravest acts of misconduct but und~r the General Clauses Act 
singular include plural acts. It is not the repetition of the acts complained F 
but its quality insideous effect and gravity of situtation that ensures from 
> 
the off~nding act. The colour of the gravest act must be gathered from the 
surrounding or attending circumstances. Thus even a single act of corrup-
tion is sufficient to award an order of dismissal under the Rule 16.2(1) as 
gravest act of misconduct. [639H-640D] 
G 
The second part of the Rule 16.2(1) cannot is the cumulative effect 
of continued misconduct proving cumulative anu complete unfitness of the 
offender and his claim for pension, which should . .only be taken into 
account in an appropriate case. So the contention of the respodent that 
both p

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