VIJAY SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 11 · Decided: 23-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

VIJAY SINGH 
A 
-\ 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 23, 2007 
[H.K. SEMA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
) 
Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980-r. 15(2)-Requirement 
under-Of prior approval from Additional Commissioner of Police for 
conducting departmental enquily-Held, is mandatory-On facts, Appellant c 
Head Constable was dismissed for misconduct pursuant to departmental 
enquiry which was conducted without prior approval as required under 
. 
r. 15(2)-/t being a case of violation of mandatory provisions of law, order 
of dismissal set aside-Service Law-Dismissal. 
Appellant, a Head Constable in Delhi Police, was served with the charge D 
that he did not follow the procedure while entering a statement in the Dai\y 
Diary and also made some overwriting therein with ulterior motive. The charge . 
was framed after a preliminary enquiry. Subsequently Departmental enquiry 
was held and Appellant was dismissed from service. 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is E 
whether there was violation of Rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment 
and Appeal) Rules, 1980 inasmuch as departmental enquiry was ordered 
without obtaining prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police, 
therefore the entire enquiry was vitiated and hence the dismissal of Appellant 
is liable to be set aside. 
F 
} 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A cursory reading of sub-rule 2 of Rule 15 would clearly 
show that the said Rule is mandatory. It has to be followed strictly in letter 
and spirit. !Para 5) 114-E] 
G 
1.2. A reading of Rule 15(1) & (2) together and the language employed 
- therein clearly discloses that a preliminary enquiry is held only in cases of 
allegation, which is of weak character and, therefore, a preliminary enquiry 
11 
H 
12 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A is to be held to establish the nature of default and identity of defaulter; to 
collect the prosecution evidence; to judge quantum of default and to bring 
relevant documents on record to facilitate a regular departmental enquiry. In 
cases, where specific information is available, a preliminary enquiry is not 
necessary and a departmental enquiry may be ordered by the dis<:iplinary 
B authority straightaway. It is because of this reason sub-rule 2 of Rule 15 is 
couched in such a way as a defence to the delinquent officer. The Additional 
Commissioner of Police being higher in hierarchy next to DGP, the 
requirement of his approval is mandatory, so that the delinquent officer is not 
prejudiced or harassed unnecessarily in a departmental enquiry. Such 
approval, if any, must also be accorded after due application of mind. It is a 
C case of violation of mandatory provisions of law. Therefore, the appeal must 
succeed. The appellant was dismissed by an order preceded by an enquiry. 
The order of dismissal is set aside. The appellant shall be re-instated 
forthwith. [Para 7[ [15-C, D, E) 
2. The appellant was dismissed on 21.1.1998 and since then he is out of 
D service till date. The appellant would be attaining the age of superannuation 
on March 31, 2012. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case 
and the nature of misconduct that is alleged to have been committed by the 
appellant as a police officer and applying the principle of 'no work no pay' he 
shall not be entitled to back wages from 21.1.1998 till re-instatement. Also 
E keeping in view the nature of misconduct said to have been committed by the 
appellant, as a police officer, this order would not preclude the disciplinary 
authority to initiate a fresh proceeding from the stage of obtaining prior 
approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police, if so advised. In the event 
of the authority deciding to hold fresh enquiry from the stage of obtaining 
prior approval from Additional Commissioner of Police, they may resort to 
F the principle laid down by this Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad 
& Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors., [Paras 8 and 91 [15-F-HI 
Managing Director, EC/L, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors., 
11993[ 4 sec 727, referred to. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7212 of2005. 
H 
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 9.7.2003 of the High Court of 
Delhi at New Delhi in C.W. No. 4220/2003. 
M.N. Krishnamani, Ashwani Bhardwaj and S. Pani for the Appellant. 
j 
-1 
y 
VJJA Y SINGH v. U. 0.1. [SEMA. J.] 
13 
B. Datta, A.S.G., T.S. Doabia, Imtiaz Ahmed, Anil Katiyar, D.S. Mehra,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.