LexUNION OF INDIA versus JAGJIT SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
UNION OF INDIA
v.
JAGJIT SINGH
April 1, 1969
B
[M. HroAYATULLAH, C.J.,
J. C. SHAH,
V. RAMASWAM!,
c
D
E
F
G
H
G. K. MITTER AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Police Act (5 of 1861 ), s. 4 and Punjab Police Rules, 1934 rr. 1.8,
16.24 (l)(i) and 16.38 (I) and (2)-Whether 'Superintendent of Police'
and 'District Superintendent of Police' same-Scope of r. 16.24 O )(i).
The respondent, who was appointed a Sub-Inspector of Police, was
posted in Delhi in 1949. A Deputy Superintendent of Police, in the City
of Delhi who bad already retired from service was directed to conduct a
departmental inquiry against the respondent.
The enquiring Officer
was
re-employed from the date of retirement as a Deputy Superintendent of
Police (Enforcement Department), and after such re""mployment, had con-
ducted. the enquiry against the respondent and found him guilty.
There-
upon the Superintendent of Police, Delhi Police Force, ordered the dis-
missal of the respondent. The respondent's suit challenginii the dismissal
was decreed and the decree w3' confirmed by the High Court.
In appeal to this Court, on the questions : (I) Whether an officer func-
tioning as a Superintendent of Police but was not designated as a District
Superintendent of Police was competent to pass the order of dismissal;
(2) Whether tho officer entrusted with the enquiry was a police officer
competent to hold the inquiry; and (3) Whether the procedure preecribod
by Rule 16.38 (I) and (2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, was fullowed
before holding the departmental enquiry.
·
HELD : (I) Though the Police Act, 1861, um the expression 'Dis-
trict Superintendent of Police' and the Punjab Police Rules use the ex-
pression tSuperintendent of Police, the two expres!ions refer to one .and
the oame authority, Under R. 1.8 of the Punjab Police Rules, there could
be more than one Superintendent of Police in a district.
Since the police
force expanded considerably between 1861 when the Act was passed and
1934 when the PUnjab Police Rules were framed, a Magisterial district W3'
divided into smaller areas for the better enforcement of law and order and
a Superintendent was place~ in charge of each such area.
Jn the Delhi
area Ibero were two Supenntendents of Police one for the city of Delhi
and the other for New Delhi.
The Superintendent of Police;
City of
Deihl, would therefore be the District Superintendent of Pollet for the
purposes or the Police Act with jurisdiction over the police station where
the plaintiff was Jl')sted, am! he, was competent to pass the order of dis-
missal. [167 E; 168 B-C, Fl
(2) Under R. 16.24 (l)(i) the officer conducting the enquiry must be
an officer empowered to punish or such superior officer whom the supe:rin~
tendent might direct to conduct the enquiry. [168 HJ
In the preJCo.t cR8e, the ollicer who co~ducted the enquiry had been
re-employed u a Deputy Superintendent o{ Police in the
Enforcement
Department or tho police forco and had taken over char&• from another
Deputy Superintendent or
Police.
Therefore, he was a police
officer
suoerior to tho re<1nnn~ent. [168 B, C-D, E]
163
164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[i970Jl~c.Jt.
(3) The file relating to the departmental enquiry against lhe plaintiff
bad been d~troyec:N.!nder the relevant police rule, long before the institution
of ·the suit. There iS thus iio documentary evidence, but the oral evidence
showed that the pr<>cedure'prescribed by R. 16.38 (!) and (2) had been
followed. fl 71 B-CJ
Stat.e of U.P. v. Babu Ram, [1961] 2 S.C.R. 679 and Delhi Administra-
tion v. Chanan Shah, [1969] 3 S.C.R .• 653, re'ierred ICY.
Crv1L .APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1111 of
1965.
Appeal by specia 1 leave from the judgment_ and order dat~
April 11, 1963 of the Punjab High Court, Ci\'cuit Bench at Delhi
in Letters Patent Appeal No. 36-D of 1963.
B. Sen and R. N. Sachthey,,for the appellant.
Frank Anthony, D. I<. Sehgal and D. D. Sharma,
for the
respondent,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Mitter, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judg-
ment and order dated April 11, 1963 of the Punjab High. Court
(Circuit Bench at Delhi) in a Letters Patent Appeal whiCh sum-
marily qismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant from a
judgment and order in a Second Appeal upholding the decree in
favour of the respondent passed 'by the Additional District_Judge,
Delhi.
The questions canvassed in this appeal were : whether the
clismExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.