LexTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. versus PREM SARUP
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2008] 13 S.C.R. 682 THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. PREM SARUP (Civil Appeal No. 5812 of 2008) SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ] Service Law: Punjab Police Rules, 1934: r. 16.3(1)(b) - Disciplinary proceedings - Constable in Punjab Police - Conviction by trial court u/s 70 /PC but ac- quittal by appellate court holding that prosecution witnesses did not support its case and were declared hostile - Disciplin- D ary proceedings initiated against Constable - Punishment of forfeiture of salary for two years - Suit by Constable seeking to set aside disciplinary proceedings - Decreed by appellate court - Decree affirmed by High Court in second appeal - Plea of Department that principal prosecution witnesses hav- ing been won over, criminal charge could not be proved and, E therefore, disciplinary proceedings underr.16.3(1)(b) could not be set aside - HELD: Department has not been able to show that the witnesses who turned hostile before the criminal court have been examined in departmental proceedings, and no material is brought on record to prove that - No case has been F made out for interference with impugned judgment- Even oth- erwise, the charges against the respondent had not been proved - Furthermore, the occurrence took place in the year 1974 and the Constable was acquitted in the year 1979, and thus, at this distant point of time, no interference with the im- G pugned judgment is warranted, particularly, when the Depart- ment has not placed any foundational fact in support of its plea that Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of s.16.3 of the Rules would be attracted in the case. H 682 ; . ~ THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. 683 PREM SARUP Union of India and Ors. vs. Naman Singh Shekhawat 2008 A =:I. (5) SCR 137 = (2008) 4 SCC 1; and Commissioner of Po- lice, New Delhi vs. Narender Singh 2006 (3) SCR 872 = (2006) 4 sec 265 - referred to. Case Law Reference B 2008 (5) SCR 137 referred to para 12 2006 (3) SCR 872 referred to para 13 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5812 of 2008 c From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2005 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 1581 of 1988 Ajay Pal and Sanjay Jain for the Appellants. D Subramonium Prasad, Varuna Bhandari Gugnani and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered 1 ' Leave granted. E 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal t No.1581/1988 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellants herein from a judgment and decree dated F l 5.1.1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala re- versing the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1985, for decla- ration that the order of the Senior Superintendent of Police dated 1.7.1981 endorsing and reviving that order as also that of the disciplinary authority thereby punishing the respondent herein by imposing a punishment' of forfeiture of service on the respon- G dent for a period of two years and the order of the D.l.G., the appellate authority as also the Inspector General of Police, Revisional authority were illegal. H 684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. ~ A 2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. 3. Respondent was a police constable. For commission of the alleged offence under Section 170 of the Indian Penal Code in the year 197 4, he was prosecuted in the year 1979. He was convicted. However, a criminal appeal was preferred by • B him. By a judgment and order dated 8.1.1979, the learned Ad- ditional Sessions Judge, Patiala allowed the said appeal, hold- ing: "The learned P.P. has frankly conceded that he is unable c to support the judgment of the learned Magistrate. Both P.W.1 Sant Singh and P.W.2 Prem Singh did not support the prosecution version at trial and consequently they were declared hostile. The learned Magistrate recorded conviction of the appellants on the basis of evidence given D by Shri Jaswant Singh and Investigating Officer Shri .,.. Mohinder Singh. But their alleged guilt. The charge under Section 170 I PC that the appellant Such a Singh pretended to hold office of DTO Ropar and did traffic checking partly could not be established in the absence of evidence of E PW Prem Singh and PW Sant Singh. There witnesses stated that they did not kn
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.