UNION OF INDIA versus RAM KISHAN

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 753 · Decided: 07-05-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
' 
• 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
RAM KISHAN 
May 7, 1971 
[S. M. SIKRI, c. I., G. K. MITTER, c. A. VAIDIALINGAM, P. JAGAN-
MOHAN REDDY AND I. D DUA, JJ.] 
Punjab Police Rules, r. 16 · 38-Dismissal of foot constable-Order of 
dismissal by Superintendent of Police (Traffic) compelent-Order illegal f,Jr 
non-compliance wit~ first Part of r. 16, 38. 
The respondent, a foot constable. filed a Suit challenging his dismissal 
on the main grounds (i) the Superintendent of Police (Traffic) was not com-
petent to pass the order of dismissal; and (ii) the order v1as illegal as the 
provisions of Punjab Police Rule 16.38 were not complied with. The 
Sub-Judge upheld the first ground and decreed the suit. 
On the second 
ground it was held_ that the necessary permission for taking departmental 
action was obtained from the District Magistrate. On appeal the High 
Court, following its earlier decision held that the Superintendent of Polke 
(Traffic) ·was not competent to dismiss the respondent. Dismissing the ap-
peal to this Court, 
HELD : (i) The first ground is concluded against the plaintiff (res-
pondent) by a decision of this Court in Union of India v. Jagjit Singh. 
[754H] 
(ii) However the appeal must fail on the ground that the provisions 
of r. 16.38 were not comp'lied with in this case. No in1mediate informa-
tion was given to the District Magistrate in respect of the complaint re-
ceived against the plaintiff nor did the District Magistrate decide whethrr 
the investigation shall be conducted by a police officer, or made over to a 
selected magistrate having 1st.Class powers. No doubt the District Magis-
trate purported to give permission under sub-r. 2 of r. 16.38, but as the 
first part of the rule was not complied 
with at all 
the departmental 
inquiry is vitiated and the order of dismissal must be declared jlJegal. 
[754H, 7560] 
U11io11 of India v. Jagjit Singh, [1970] I S.C.R. 163, 168 and Delhi 
Administration v. Chanan Shah, [1969]· 3 S.C.R. 658, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 571 of 
1967 . 
I 53 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
October 12, 1966 of the Punjab High Court. Circuit Bench at 
G 
Delhi in Regular Second Appeal No. 28-D of 1966. 
R. N. Sachthey, for the appellanl 
N. D. Bali and D. D. Sharma, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, C. J.-The respondent Ram Kishan, hereinafter ri> · H 
ferred to as the plaintiff, a Foot Constable, filed a suit in the Court 
48-1 S.C. lndia/71 
754 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1971] SUPP.S.C.R 
of Sub-Judge I st Oass, Delhi, challenging his dismissal from ser-
vice by an order da.ted 25th October, 1960. This order was passed 
by Shri M. K. Saxena, Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Delhi. 
It was alleged by the plaintiff that this order was bad and illegal 
on various grounds. 
Two grounds ,may be mentioned here : 
(!) ThBlt Shri M. K. Saxena, Superintendent of Police (Traffic), 
Delhi 
was 
not a 
District Superintendent of Police; 
(2) 
That the mandatory provisions of Punjab Police 
Rule 16.38 
had been violated inasmuch as no information was given 
to the District Magistrate as laid down in the Punjab Police 
Rule 16.38(1) and the District Magistrate never decided whether 
the preliminary investigation was to be conducted by the police 
or by a selected Magistrate !st Qass. 
It was further alleged 
that even the provisions of sub-Rule 
(2) of Rule 16.38 
were 
not observed. The learned Sub-Judge decreed the suit and gave 
a• declaration that the dismissal of the plantiff was void. A decree 
for Rs. 1151/- was passed in favour of the Foot Constable. 
Among other issues framed, the following issues may be noticed : 
(!) Whether the Superintendent of Police (Traffic) 
was not competent to pass the impugned order as alle-
ged? 
(2) Whether the provisions 
of Rules 
16.38 
and 
16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules were complied with by 
the defenda0nt ? If not, to what effect ? 
The learned Sub-Judge held and decided issue No. 1 against the 
Government and held the order of dismissal to be vitiated. 
Regarding issue No. 2, however, he held that there was a complete 
compliance of Rule 16.24. He further held that even as regards 
Rule 16.38, the necessary permission of the District Magistrate, 
Delhi for taking the departmental action aga-inst the plaintiff was 
obtained from the District Magistrate vide Ex. P.9A. 
The Government filed an appeal and 

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