LexUNION OF INDIA versus RAM KISHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA v. RAM KISH.AN May 7, 1971 757 A . IS. M. SiKiu, C. J., G. K. MrrrER, C. A. \I' AIDIALINGAM, P. J AGAN- 8 . MOHAN REDDY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.) l'tMtlab Police Rules, r. 16.3S-Police Officer in plain c/athes cammitt- isg ot/£nct! while raiding a p/~Failure ta give in/armation ta District MQ/IUlral~Yalidity of departmental inquiry and dismissal af.police officer. · . The respondent, a. police constable, raided a place, and in the course el. lbe raid caused a knife injury to one of th• persons ill the place. Ho -t to the aceno of occurrence without his uniform. A caso under s. 324, LP.C., wu registered agaiDst him. A departmental inquiry was also ordr.r- ed ap.inst him and he was dismissed from service. He filed a sui~ challent!- ilol the order of dismissal on tho ground, inter alia, that the procedure preocribed by the r. 16. 38 of the Punjab Police Rules was not followed. The High Court, in appeal, decreed the suit. In appeal to this Court, c D HELD: The plaintiff was purporting to exercise the authority of a police officer even if he was in plain clothes. The acts alleged against him constituted a criminal offence in connection with his official relation with the public and their description in the charge in the departmental proceed- E ings as negligence was an atten1pt to avoid the effect of r. 16.38. Under sul>-r .. (1) of the rule immediate information regarding the commission of the offence sbo~ld have been given to the District Magistrate. In the present case there was no evidence of any such infortnation being given to the District Magistrate, nor was there evidence that tho District Magistrate decided that the investigation shall be conducted by P die police officers who conducted it. Since there was a breach of sub-r. (I) of the rule the order of dismissal was illegal. (759B-H, 760H] Delhi Administration v. Chanan Shah, [1969] 3 S.C.R. 653 followed. OVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 750 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from judgment and order dated March 4, 1964 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench, Delhi io. C.R.S.A. No. 256-D of 1962. Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor-General, and R. N. Sachthcy, for the appellant N. D. Bali and D. D. Shm·ma. for the respondent. G H 758 A B c D E Ji' G H WPREMB COURT REPORTS [1971] SUPP. s.c.R. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, C.J.-The respondent, Ram Kishan, Head Constable, (hereinafter referred to as the Plantiff) failed a suit challeng- ing the order of dismissal passed against him on 3rd September, 1957 by Shri D. C. Sharma, Superintendent. of Police (CentraD. The main attack was twofold. First it was alleged that Shri D. C. Sharma was not a District Superintendent of Police and, therefore not entitled to dismiss the plaintiff.. Secondly it was alleged that as the procedure. prescribed by Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules was not followed, the departmental action taken against the plaintiff was illegal. The version of the plaintiff as to what happened on 22nd June, 1957 was this. On 22nd June, 1957 he was on duty "for prevention of crime and while on his round he received infor- mation that some gamblers were gambling in a public place on Rouse Avenue. Consequently, he organised a raiding party. The gamblers, who were Harijans, out-numbered the police party and inflicted some injuries on the members of the party. Fearing that they would be hauled up, they approached !II Harijan member of the Corporation as well as a Harijan Member of the Parliament, who telephoned to the plaintiff's officers, at the police station, before the plaintiff reached the police station from the scene of affray in order to lodge his report. The version of the Government was that the plantiff was deputed for the checking of cycle theft duty near Employment Exchange, Darya Gunj and he had not ·been posted at Rouse Avenue, Harding Bridge. It was denied that the plaintiff received any information regarding gambling at a public place in Rouse Avenue. On the contrary it was alleged on behalf of the Government that the plaintiff alongwith other constables wanted to implicate Mohan Lal, Nathu etc., and a scuffle took place between the plaintiff and his other associates on the one hand and Mohan Lal and others on the other hand. The Sub-Judge dismissed the suit. The plaiintiff filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, who accepted the appeal and granted the pl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.