STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DEWAN CHUNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .- By this appeal the State of Punjab challenges the judgment and order of the Punjab High Court upholding the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Gurgaon declaring that the dismissal of the respondent from service was illegal and inoperative. The respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police was called upon to answer a charge framed on October 12, 1949 setting forth extracts from his confidential character roll showing his inefficiency and lack of probity while in service from 1941 to 1948 and to submit his answer to the prima facie charge of inefficiency as envisaged in paragraph 16.25 (2) of the Punjab Police Rules.

(2.) The respondent had joined the police service and had served as a Sub-Inspector in various places which are now in Pakistan before he was posted to Gurgaon in the year 1948. It appears that the view taken of his conduct and reputation by his superior officers over the years was not consistent. In some years he got what is known as a 'B' certificate and in others an 'A' certificate. According to rule 13.17 of the Punjab Police Rules, Superintendents of Police had to prepare personally and submit annually to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police confidential reports in the form prescribed on the working of all Assistant Sub Inspectors and Sub Inspectors serving under them. The reports were to be of two kinds 'A' and 'B' , and to be marked as such. An 'A' report was for recommending that incremental promotions should not be withheld while a 'B' report was to contain a recommendation, for reasons to be fully stated, that incremental promotions should be withheld. The rule further shows that the purport of all 'B' reports was to be formally communicated to the officer concerned and his written acknowledgment to be taken. It also prescribed that the submission of two successive 'B' reports regarding an officer would result, automatically in the institution of departmental proceedings against him with a view to stoppage of increment.

(3.) The punishments which could be awarded departmentally are set out in rule 16.1 and under rule 16.2 (1) dismissal is to be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. Rule 16.24 sets out the procedure to be followed in departmental enquiries. The sum and substance of rule 16.24 is that in case the police officer did not admit the misconduct :