STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. versus HARISH CHANDRA SINGH

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 392 · Decided: 17-01-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

392 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. 
v. 
HARISH CHANDRA SINGH 
January 17, 1969 
[S. M. Snou, R. s. BACHAWAT AND K. s. HEGDE, JJ.] 
Constitution of India Art. 311(1)--Consideration of past record-
01nission in show cause-Whether justifies lesser pena/~v. 
Police A.ct, 1861, ss. 7 and 29-Scope of-Prosecution under s. 29, 
need not precede charges under s. 7. 
A 
B 
The respondent, was selected by the Deputy Inspector General of 
Police for admission to the Police Training College, and the result declar-
C 
ing him successful was issued by the order of the Inspector General of 
Police, and bis appointment announced in the police gazette. 
While the 
respondent was serving as a Sub-Inspector of Police. charges were framed 
against him, under s. 7 of the Police Act, 1861. The Superintendent of 
Police gave a report mentioning his past record, and recommended his 
'removal from service. Notice to show cause, enclosing the findings of the 
Superintendent of Police was served on the respondent. 
The Deputy 
Inspector General, held the enquiry, and agreed with the findings of the 
D 
Superintendent of Police. The respondent filed an appeal to the !nspector-
General of Police, which was rejected. 
In their order, both the Deputy 
Inspector General and Inspector General, took into consideration the past 
record of the respondent. 
The respondent filed a suit for a declaration 
th:1t his removal was illegal and ineffective. 
The trial court dismissed the 
suit, but the High Court decreed the suit holding that no opportunity was 
given to the respondent to expl¥n his past record which \Vas ta.ken into 
E 
consideration. 
In appeal to this Court, the State contended that the res-
pondent had notice that his past ·record would be taken into considerati-.:>n. 
and alternatively, if the past record was t~.kcn into consideration for impos-
ing lesser oenalty, it was not necesary to mention in the show cause notice 
that the past record would be considered. 
The respondent contended 
that there has been breach of Art. 311 ( 1) of the Constitution as he was 
appointed by the Inspector General of Police and removed by the Deputy 
Inspector General of Police and that he should have been tried 
under 
F 
s. 29 of the Police Act, before he was charged under s. 7. 
HELD : The suit must be dismi.sed. 
(i) The respondent had notice that his past record would be taken 
into consideration because the Superintendent of Police had mentioned it 
in hi!ri order, a copy of \Vhich w:1s supplied to him. 
Furthe'r, on the 
charges against the respondent, he had been dealt with leniently and if the 
record was taken into consideration for the purpose of imposing a lesser 
punishment rind not for the pUrpose of increasing the quantum or nature 
of punishment. then it was not necessary that it should be stated in the 
sho\v cause. notice that his past record would be taken into consideration. 
[397A; G-HJ 
State of M.,·sore v. K. Manche Gowda, [1964] 4 S.C.R. 
540. 
548, 
referred to. 
(ii) The first appellate court's conclusion that the respondent hh.d been 
appointed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, was a finding of 
fact and was binding on this Court. But apart from that the "';'IY doc;u-
ment relied on by the respondent was the result 
sheet 
dec1anng 
him 
G 
H 
!
U.P. STATE V. HARISH CHANDRA (Sikri, /.) 
393 
A 
successful ;1fter training and this had no relevance to his appointment as 
Sub-Inspector of Police. 
[398 A-OJ 
(iii) A Police Officer may also be liable to be prosecuted under s. Z9 
of the Police Ac), but it i• not necessary that in every case which falls 
within s. 7 the Police· Officer should first be prosecuted under s. 29 before 
he can be proceeded under s. 7. Section 7 deals with disciplinary proceed-
B 
ings while s. 29 makes certain b~eaches criminal olfences. Section 29 
does not in any way limit the operation of s. 7. [399 CJ 
C1v1L APPELLATE JuR1so1cTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 834 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
March 2. 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal 
C 
No. 1271of1962. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
C. P. A garwa/a and 0. P. Rana, for the appellan~: 
E. C. Agrawa/a, S. R. Agrawa/a and P. C. Agrawlllla, tor the 
respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad di~ing 
the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, appel-
lants before us, against

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