STATE OF PUNJAB versus KISHAN DASS

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 389 · Decided: 19-01-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
KISHANDASS 
January 19, 1971 
389 
[J. M. SHELAT AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Constitution of India. Arr. 311-Forfeiiure of past service-If amounts 
to reduction in rank. 
Pursuant to certain charges against the respondent, a police constable, 
his entire service with permanent effect were forfeited, which meant re-
ducing his salary to the starting point in the time scale for constables. An 
appeal by him before the Deputy Inspector General having failed, he filed 
a suit. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the order amounted 
to reduction in rank, therefore, Art. 311(2) of the Constitution was attract-
ed and as no show cause notice was served belfore the order was passed, 
the order was vitiated and was bad. The decree was affirmed by the first 
appellate court and thereafter in second appeal by the High Court. Allow-
ing the appeal by the State, this Court, 
HELD : The expression "reduction in rank" in Art. 311 (2) has to be 
construed according to the well-established meaning it bas acquired, as in 
the case of the other two expressions, namely, 'dismissal' and 'removal' in 
that Article, under the various service rules and under the provisions in 
that regard in the Constitution Acts of 1915 and 1935. The expression 
"reduction in rank" in the Article, therefore, means reduction 
from a 
higher to a lower rank or post when imposed as a penalty. Therefore, an 
order forfeiting the past service which has earned a Government servant 
increments in the post or rank he holds, howsoever adverse it is to him, 
affecting his seniority within the rank to which he belongs or his future 
chances or promotion, does not attract the Article. His remedy, there/fore, 
is confined to the rules of service governing his post. [397 E] 
High Court, Calcutta v. Amal Kumar Roy, [1963] 1 S.C.R. 437 and 
Shit/a S. Shrivastava v. Nol'th Eastern Rly. [1963] 3 S.C.R. 61, followed. 
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, 
[1958] S.C.R. 828, dis-
approved. 
Rupnarain Singh, State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1959, Orissa 167, P. C. 
Wadhwa v. Union of India, [1964] 4 S.C.R. 598 and Dubesh Chandra Das 
v. Union of India, A.IR 1970 S.C. 77, distinguished. 
Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe v. State of Mysore, [1962] I S.C.R. 
886 and Afzalur Rahman v. Emperor, A.LR. 1943 F.C. 18, referred tv. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 359 of 
1967. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
July 29. 1966 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Misc. No. 1144-C 
of 1966 in Regular Second Appeal No. 340 of 1966. 
V. C. Mahajan, for the appellant. 
A. N. Nag, for the respondent. 
390 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] 3 ;:;.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shelat, J. 
The respondent 
was at all material times 
a 
con>table in the Punjab Police Service and was posted at Ambala. 
In November 1960, he was served with a charge sheet attributing to 
A 
him arrogance towards his superior officers and indiscipline. 
A 
depanmental enqiury was admittedly held in accordance with the 
)l. 
procedure laid down therefor in the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. 
The said charges having been held to have been proved, an order 
followed forfeiting his entire service with permanent effect. This 
meant bringing down his salary to Rs. 45/- per month, which 
would be the, salary payable to a constable at the starting point of 
his service. An appeal by him before the Deputy InspectocGene-
C 
ral having failed, 
he filed 
a suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, 
Ambala. 
The suit was on th-~ basis that the said order amounted to re-
duction in· rank, that therefore, Art. 311 (2) of the Ce>nstitution 
was. attracted and that no show cause notice against the action 
proposed against him having been served upon him before the 
D 
said order: was passed, the order was vitiated and was bad. The 
· Trial Court accep•~d this contention and decreed the suit. 
An 
. appeal by the appellant-State failed as the District Judge, re-
lying on Rupnarain Singh v. State of Orissa(1) . held that the 
said order amounted to reduction in rank and the respondent was 
therefore entitled to the procedural safeguards laid down in Art. 
E 
311 (2). A second appeal by the State before the High Court 
was summarily rejected. 
Hence this appeal founded on special 
leave granted by this Court. 
The only question arising in this appeal, the facts not .being 
in dispute, is whether the order forfeiting the respondent's service, 
which m
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.