STATE OF PUNJAB versus DEWAN CHUNI LAL

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 694 · Decided: 16-02-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

694 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
DEWAN CHUNI LAL 
February 16, 19'70 
[J. M. SHELAT AND G. K. MITTER, J1.J 
Constitution of India, Art. 311-0pportunity to show cause "llflinst 
dismiss•·l-Departmental enquiry is vitiated if officer concerned Is not 
given reasonob/e opportunizy of conducting his defence. 
Punjab Police Ru/es-Officer charged with inefjicie11ey ·within meaning 
of R. 16. 25(2)-Adverse reports relating to 1941 and 1942 not relevant 
when officer allowed to cross efficiency bar in 1944. 
The respondent was a Sub-l!jSpector of Police and had served as such 
in various places which are no,,V in Pakistan before being posteq to 
Gurgaon in 1948. His confi<lential service reports upto 1940 were satis-
factory. In 1941 and 1942 he got bad reports. However he was allowed 
to cross the efficiency bar in 1944. 
The reports relating to 1945 and 
1946 were again adverse.. In 1948 the report charged him with having 
taken bribe in a particular case, but the charge was on enquiry found to 
be false. 
On October 12, 1949 he was served with a charge sheet setting 
forth extracts from his confidential character roll imputing inefficiency 
and lack of probity while in service from 1941 to 1948. He was asked 
to answer to the prima facie chal'ge of inefficiency as envisaged in para-
graph 16.25(2) of the Punjab Police Rules. A departmental enquiry was 
held and the enquiry officer in 1950 recommended his dismissal. After a 
further show cause notice the respondent was dismissed from seryice. He 
thereupon filed a suit in which he challenged his dismissal as wrongful on 
the gj'ounds inter alia that (i) Reports relating to the years 1941 & 1942 
should not have been taken into consideration against him; (ii) that the 
enquiry oljicer did not allow hiin to examine in defence the :officers who 
- had written adverse reports against him and other witnesses who could 
have thrown light on these reports. The trial court decreed the suit and 
the High Court also held in the appellant's favour mainly on the ground 
that Art. 311 of the Constitution had not been complied with. In appeal 
to this Court by the State of Punjab. 
HELD: (i) Reports earlier than 1944 should not have been"<:onsider-
ed at all inasmuch as the respondent was allowed to cross the efficiency 
bar in that year. It was unthinkable that if the authorities took any 
serious view of the charge of dishonesty and inefficiency contained in the 
confidential reports .for 1941 and 1942 they could have overlooked the 
same and recommended the case of the officer as one fit for crossing the 
efficiency bar in 1944. 
Moreover there was no specific complaint in 
either of the two .years and at best there was only room for suspicion re-
garding his behaviour. [699 HJ 
(ii) On the facts of this case it was impossible to hold that the respon-
dent had been given reasonable opportunity of conducting . his 
defence 
before the enquiry officer. It was clear that if the enquiry officer had 
summoried at least those witnesses who were available and who could 
have thrown some light on the reports made ag.ainst the respondent the 
report might will have been different. 
Refusal of the right to examine 
witness~ who had made general remarks against the respondent's.character 
and were available for ~xamination. at the ,enq~~ amoun~ to denial 
of a reasonable opportunity of showmg cause agamst tlie action proposed. 
Although the case was governed by Art. 3tl as it stood prior to its 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
' 
PUNJAB v. CHUN! LAL (Mitter, I.) 
695 
A 
a!"endment in 1963 the, respondent could not be deprived of an effective 
nght to make representation against the aCtion of dismissal [70 I F-O· 
703 C-D] 
. 
' 
In this view the appeal by the State of Punjab must fail. 
Sadananda Mohapatra v. State, A.I.R. 1967 Orissa 49 and State of 
lammu & Kashmir v. Bakshi Ghu/am Mohammed [1966] Supp S C.R 
B 
401, distinguished. 
' 
· · 
• 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
State o/ Orissa v. ,Sailabehari, A,l.R. 1963< Orissa 73, referred to. 
' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2348 of 
1966. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 6, 1962, 
of the Poojab High Court in Regular First Appeal No. 53 of 1956. 
V. C. Maha;an, for the appellant. 
N. S. Bindra and B. Datta, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of_ the Court was delivered by 
Mitter, J. 
By this ~ppeal the State of Punjab challenges the 
judgment and order of the Punjab High Court upholding the 
decree of the Subordinate Judge, Gurgaon d

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