THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. versus SHEO NARAYAN SINGH

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 549 · Decided: 27-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, S.C. SEN, S.P. KURDUKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

·-
' 
)' . 
·~ 
...... ' 
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
v. 
SHEO NARAYAN SINGH 
JANUARY 27, 1997 
lJ.S. VERMA, SUHAS C. SEN AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.} 
Service Law-Bihar Police Manual-Rules 853-A and 853-Scope com-
... 
pare~lnspector General's Power under Rule 853-A to modify the Order 
passed by the authority below-Held: Exercisable not only in respect of Order 
of Punishment but also in respect of exonerati01r-Can be exercised suomotu 
even without a memorial or revision on his satisfaction that tlte impugned 
order calls for revision-power under R. 853 exercisable only on the basis of 
revision and in case of order.of punishment. 
Respondent a Constable in Bihar Military Police, was dismissed . 
from seriice on being found guilty of forging the rocords of his previous 
military service in order to procure the job. On appeal, the Deputy Inspec-
tor General, .set aside the order of dismissal. But the Director C.eneral 
reversed the same and restored the order of dismissal in exercise of his 
power under soction 853A(a) of the Bihar Police Manual, which was 
challenged by the respondent by tiling a writ petition in the High Court. 
The High Court allowed the writ petition quashed the impugned order and 
dirocted the Diroctor General to pass a fresh order after giving an oppor-
tunity to the respondent of being beard. The Director General, after 
hearing the petitioner dismissed him froni service, against which the 
respondent tiled a Writ petition in the High Court. The High Court allowed 
the same holding that the suo motu powers of the Inspector General under 
Rule 853-A of the Police Manual did not envisage a case where an officer 
had been exonerate in a departmental proceedi'ng. It also held that there 
A 
B 
c 
D . 
E 
F 
was no provisicm in Rule 853 by which the department could prefer a 
memorial or revision against the order exonerating a police officer. The 
State of Bihar has preferred the present appeal against the order of the G 
High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court clearly failed to appreciate the scope 
and efToct of Rules 853 and 853-A of the Bihar Police Manual. The two H 
549 
550 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Rules are independent of each other. The scope and purpose of Rules 853 
and 853-A are quite different. Rule 853 deals with memorials and revision 
which stre filed by a person against whom final orders of d,ismissal, 
removal or reduction in rank had been passed. The power under Rule 
853-A is not to be exercised on the basis of a memorial or a revision filed 
B by an aggrieved party. The power is to be exercised whenever the Inspector 
General is of the view that the impugned order calls for revisions. The 
order contemplated under Rule 853·A need nnt be against a final order of 
"dismissal, removal or reduction in rank". l555-E-D] 
1.2. T~te provisions of 853-A give suo motu power to the Inspector 
C 
General to pass such order as he may de~:m fit when an appeal lay and also 
when no appeal could be filed. After the authority had erroneously passed 
an order exonerating respondent of the charges levelled against ~ im, the 
Inspector venera! could under sub-rule (a) of Rult: 853-A call for the tile 
and pass such order as be d eem~:d fit. Tilis wide power enables the Inspec-
tor General to inflict a punishment when such an order is called for and 
D exonerate an officer when punishment has been wrongly given. 
[554-H; 555-A-8 ) 
CIVIL APPELLATE .JURlSDICTJON : Civil Appeal No. 6538 of 
1994. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.93 of the Patna High 
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2733 of 1993. 
Uday Sinha, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri and Anil Kr. Jha for the 
Appellants. 
F 
Gopal Singh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SEN, J. When the case was taken up for hearing. Shri Gopal Singh, 
Advocate who was appearing for the respondent-S·heo Narayan Singh all 
G throughout submitted that his client had taken away the papers from him 
and he had instructions not to represent him in this appeal. He stated that 
he has no instructions to appear in this matter. Since the respondent had 
already been served and since he had taken away the papers from his 
advocate and had instructed him not to appear for him, it was his duty to 
arrange for proper representation of his case. Since nobody has appeared 
H for the respondent, we have decided to proceed with the matter ex parte. 
-· 
- ") 
STATEv. S . . SlNGH [SEN,J.J 
551 
This is an a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.