STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus MADHAV PRASAD SHARMA

Citation: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 266 · Decided: 10-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 266 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
v. 
MADHAV PRASAD SHARMA 
(Civil Appeal No. 242 of 2011) 
JANUARY 10, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.) 
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952: 
c 
Chapter. 8, Rule 5 - Special appeal - Writ petition 
challenging the order of appellate authority passed in exercise 
of appellate jurisdiction in terms of Service Rules of 1991 -
Allowed by Single Judge of High Court - Special appeal 
before Division Bench of High Cou7f:.:.- HELD: Has been 
0 rightly held by Division Bench of the High Court as not 
maintainable. 
Service Law: 
Termination of service -
Police Constable -
E Departmental proceedings for unauthorized absence from 
duty -
Delinquent sanctioned leave without pay -
Subsequently services terminated -
Plea of double 
punishment - HELD: Single Judge of High Court erred in 
quashing the order of termination holding that the delinquent 
F was inflicted with two punishments - Rule 4 of the Service 
Rules of 1991, defining the penalties in clear terms, makes 
it clear that sanction of leave without pay cannot be treated 
as a penalty -
There is no question- of awarding two 
punishments in respect of one charge - Doctrine of double 
G jeopardy has no application in the case - Judgment of Single 
Judge set aside - Matter remitted to Single Judge of High 
Court for disposal afresh - Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Police 
Officers/ Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 
H 
266 
. 
~!!!!
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. MADHAV PRASAD 
267 
SHARMA 
- Rules 4, 7 and 8 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 
A 
20(2). 
--........-
The respondent was appointed as Police Constable 
on 1.2.1978. He remained on unauthorized leave for 101 
days from 19.10.2001 to 28._01.2002. Departmental 
B 
proceedings were initiated against him which culminated 
in termination of his services by order dated 23.11.2002 
passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police. The 
~ 
departmental appeal filed by him before the Deputy 
Inspector General of Police was rejected. However, the c 
writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the 
Single Judge of the High Court holding that the 
respondent was sanctioned leave without pay and 
subsequently, his services were terminated on the same 
ground and, as such, two punishments were inflicted for 
one charge which was not permissible in law. The special 
D 
. 
_.,__ 
appeal filed by the State Government was dismissed by 
the Division Bench of the High Court on the ground of 
maintainability. 
In the instant appeal filed the State Government the 
questions for consideration before the Court were~ (i} 
E. 
whether the special appeal preferred by the State before . 
the Division Bench of the High Court against the order 
~ 
of the Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the 
petitioner therein was maintainable? and (ii) whetb.er the 
F 
. order of the Single Judge quashing the order of 
termination of the petitioner therein was sustainable. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 
G 
'\ 
~ 
1. It is· fairly admitted that in view of the fact that 
against the order of termination the delinquent availed 
departmental appeal to the DIG, against the order of the 
Single Judge of the High Court no further appeal by way 
H 
268 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 
A of special appeal before the Division Bench would lie. 
The order of the SSP was considered and disposed of 
by the Appellate Authority, i.e., DIG and the order 
impugned in the writ petition was passed in exercise of 
appellate jurisdiction in terms of the Uttar Pradesh 
8 Subordinate Police Officers/Employees (Punishment and 
Appeal) Rules, 1991. Therefore, in view of Rule 5 of 
Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, the 
Division Bench of the High Court rightly arrived at the 
conclusion that the special appeal filed by the State 
C Government was no maintainable. [para 8] [274-A-D] 
2.1 The Single Judge of the High Court, without 
going into the merits of the claim made by both the 
parties with reference to the charge levelled against the 
delinquent, enquiry proceedings, order of the SSP and 
D DIG, erred in quashing the order of termination holding 
that the delinquent was inflicted with two punishments. 
Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Police Officers/ 
Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, m~kes 
it clear that sanction of leave without pay is not one of 
E the punishments, prescribed. Disciplinary authority is 
competent to impose ap

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