THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. versus SYED HUSSAIN

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 805 · Decided: 25-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, P.P. NAOLEKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

l'f 
\ 
~ 
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. 
v. 
SYED HUSSAIN 
JANUARY 25, 2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 226 and 14-Judicial review-Discretion exercised by statutory 
authority-/nterferenre with-Discussed. 
Service Law: 
Dismissal from service-Misconduct-Police Constable stood surety 
A 
B 
c 
for hardened criminal-Antecedents of accused known to the Constable-
Held, punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be wholly D 
disproportionate and violative of doctrine of proportionality. 
Administrative Law 
Public servant-Duty to act in aid of law and not to aid or abet 
accused fleeing from justice. 
Doctrine-Doctrine of proportionality-Applicability of 
E 
Respondent, a Police Constable, was dismissed from service for 
misconduct on the charges that he knowingly stood surety for a hardened 
criminal involved in 32 cases of snatching goods from other persons. His F 
application was dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal 
but his writ petition was allowed by the High Court in part holding that the 
respondent had an unblemished record of28 years of service and directing 
the Tribunal to substitute the order by any other punishment except dismissal, 
removal or compulsory retirement. Aggriev·ed, the Department filed the G 
present appeal 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The respondent stood surety for a hardened criminal who had 
sos 
H 
806 
SUPREME C()l'Rl REPORTS 
[2006] I S.C.R. 
A been involved in several snatching cases and who jumped bail. Presumably 
because the respondent, a Constable, had stood as the surety, the accused was 
! 
enlarged on bail by the court. In a situation of this nature, keeping in view the 
nature of duties that a protector of law is required to perform, the disciplinary 
authority cannot be said to have committed an error in imposing the 
B punishment of removal from service upon the respondent, particularly when 
on earlier two occasions also he had been found guilty of commission of 
misconduct and punished therefor. The High Court thus committed a manifest 
error in arriving at a finding that the respondent had unblemished record for 
28 years. On the basis of materials on record which was before the High 
Court, such finding could not have been arrived at. The impugned judgment 
C cannot be sustained, and is set aside. [809-F, G, H; 810-A-B, D[ 
D 
2. It is not the case of the respondent that the impugned order of 
punishment smacks of arbitrariness so as to attract the wrath of Article 14 
of the Constitution of India. The jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority to 
impose such punishment is also not in question. (809-A[ 
3. Furthermore, the punishment of removal from service is not imposed 
only in the case of fraud or defalcation of Government funds but even where 
a misconduct is committed by a person who holds a position of trust and on 
whom the society looks forward as a protector of law and in such cases 
E punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be wholly 
disproportionate, and thus the same was not even violative of doctrine of 
proportionality. The doctrine of proportionality has to be applied in appropriate 
case as the depth of judicial review will depend on the facts and circumstances 
of each case. It is not one of such cases where the doctrine of proportionality 
should be invoked. (809-E, 810-CJ 
F 
G 
Huang and Ors. v. Secretary ofStutefor the Home Department, (2005( 
3 All ER 435 and R. v. Secre1ary of State of the Home Department, ex. P. Dale 
(2001 f 3 All ER 433, referred to. 
Om Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India, [2001 ( 2 SCC 386, cited. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6319 of2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 15966/2003. 
H 
Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy for the Appellants. 
.• 
.. 
I 
' 
I 
' 
' 
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. SYED HUSSAIN 
807 
Dr. K.P. Kyalashanatha Pillai, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Mohd. Wasay A 
Khan, Suyodhan B., R. Shanthanand Krishna, D. Mahesh Babu, R. Santhan 
Krishnan, G. Sateesh and Mrs. K. Radha Rani for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal is directed against the orde~ dated 7.8.2003 passed by the B 
Division Bench of the High Court of judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad 
in Writ Petition No. 15966/2003 whereby and whereunder the Writ Petition 
filed by the respondent herein against a judgment and order d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.