Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the dismissal of a police constable, Constable Sarwan Singh, who faced a disciplinary inquiry for unauthorised absence from duty. After a show-cause notice was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Ropar, the constable was transferred first to District Sangrur and then to District Patiala. The relevant disciplinary file also moved to Patiala. On April 25, 1984, an order of dismissal was passed, signed by 'Superintendent of Police, Patiala' and at the foot by 'Sri J.P.Virdi, I.P.S., Superintendent of Police, Patiala'. The constable challenged the dismissal by filing a suit. The Trial Court decreed the suit solely on the ground that the dismissal order had been passed not by the Superintendent of Police in charge of the district but by Sri J.P.Virdi, who was only a Superintendent of Police (Headquarters). The Trial Court held that only the Superintendent of Police in charge of the district was competent to dismiss a police constable under the relevant rules. The District Judge affirmed this finding on appeal, observing that Sri J.P.Virdi was not in charge of the district at the relevant time and therefore not competent to pass the dismissal order. The State of Punjab's second appeal was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, the State contended that under Punjab Police Rules, Chapter XVI, Rule 16.1, Column (6), constables can be dismissed by 'Superintendents of Police' in plural, and therefore a Superintendent of Police under whom the constable was working is competent, not necessarily the district in-charge. The State further argued that the respondent had not alleged or established that the officer who signed the dismissal order was not having control over him, and the burden of proving lack of authority lay upon the respondent. The respondent, on the other hand, relied on decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that only the Superintendent of Police or Senior Superintendent of Police in charge of the district is competent to pass a dismissal order. The Supreme Court noted that the dismissal order was signed by 'Superintendent of Police, Patiala' and did not describe the officer as 'Superintendent of Police (Headquarters)'. The court observed that the High Court ought to have dealt with whether that description was correct, whether the order was incompetent if passed by a Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), whether the respondent was posted at Headquarters at the time of dismissal and was subordinate to that officer, and the State's contention based on the language of Column (6). Since the question was of general application, the Supreme Court held that the matter should be examined in depth by the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the order under appeal was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal. The High Court was requested to admit the second appeal, give notice to the respondent, dispose of the appeal on merits, and was free to call further evidence if necessary. The Supreme Court also directed expeditious disposal and made no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Inquiry - Competent Authority to Dismiss Police Constable - Punjab Police Rules, Chapter XVI, Rule 16.1, Column (6) - The dispute concerned whether only the Superintendent of Police in charge of the district could dismiss a constable or any Superintendent of Police under whom the constable was working was competent. The appellant State contended that Column (6) mentions 'Superintendents of Police' in plural, so the Superintendent of Police under whom the delinquent constable works is competent; the respondent relied on Punjab and Haryana High Court decisions stating only the district in-charge is competent. The Supreme Court observed that the dismissal order was signed by 'Superintendent of Police, Patiala' and did not describe himself as 'Superintendent of Police (Headquarters)'; the High Court ought to examine whether that description was correct, whether the respondent was posted at Headquarters and subordinate to the Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), and the State's contention based on the language of Column (6). Held that these questions needed to be examined in depth by the High Court. B) Service Law - Disciplinary Inquiry - Appellate Remand - Punjab Police Rules, Chapter XVI, Rule 16.1 - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's dismissal of the second appeal in limine because the High Court failed to examine material questions concerning the authority of the dismissing officer and the State's interpretation of Rule 16.1. Held that since the question was of general application, the matter required in-depth examination by the High Court, and the second appeal should be admitted, notice given to the respondent, and disposed of on merits, with liberty to call further evidence if necessary.
Issue of Consideration
Whether only the Superintendent of Police in charge of a district is competent to dismiss a police constable under Punjab Police Rules, Chapter XVI, Rule 16.1 Column (6), or whether any Superintendent of Police under whom the constable is working may do so; whether the High Court erred in dismissing the State's second appeal in limine without examining the authority of the officer who signed the dismissal order and the State's interpretation of the relevant rule.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order under appeal set aside; matter remitted to High Court for fresh disposal. High Court to admit the second appeal, give notice to the respondent, dispose of the appeal on merits, with liberty to call further evidence if necessary; expeditious disposal directed; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Competent authority to dismiss police constable under Punjab Police Rules
- interpretation of plural 'Superintendents of Police' in Rule 16.1 Column (6)
- district in-charge versus any Superintendent under whom constable works
- burden of proof on delinquent officer to establish lack of authority
- High Court must examine merits instead of dismissing second appeal in limine
- remand for in-depth examination of general applicability question
