UNION OF INDIA Vs. SURAJ BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Suraj Bhan who was officiating as an Assistant Inspector of Police was dismissed from service by the order dated 29-4-1961 after a disciplinary inquiry had been held against him under the Punjab Police Rules. He filed Civil Writ Petition No. 691-D of 1963 challenging the validity of the order of his dismissal on three grounds, namely :-

(2.) The first two contentions were accepted by a learned Single Judge of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court sitting at Delhi who quashed the order of dismissal by the order dated 26th April 1965. The learned Single Judge did not think it necessary to consider the third ground of challenge which had been urged by Suraj Bhan against the order of his dismissal. The present Letters Patent appeal filed by the Union of India against the said decision of the learned Single Judge was referred to a Full Bench for consideration of the first two contentions, the acceptance of which had led to the quashing of the order of dismissal. The Full Bench disagreed with the decision of the learned Single Judge on both the grounds by holding that ( I ) the departmental inquiry against Suraj Bhan was not vitiated by any contravention of rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, and (2) the Superintendent of Police was competent to dismiss Suraj Bhan under section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 read with Articles 310 and 311 of the Constitution. As the third contention of Suraj Bhan had not been considered by the learned Single Judge, the Full Bench returned the case to the referring Bench to hear the parties on the third contention in the light of the findings given by the Full Bench on the first two contentions, and then to dispose of the appeal. This is how we have come to hear the parties on the last contention of Suraj Bhan against the validity of the order of his dismissal.

(3.) Shri D. R. Sehgal, learned counsel for the Respondent 1nitially submitted that the decision of the District Magistrate that instead of holding a judicial prosecution, only a departmental inquiry should be held against Suraj Bhan was not valid as no reasons for the same were recorded by the District Magistrate though he was required to do so by rule 16.38(2) of the Punjab Police Rules. In our view, the learned counsel is not entitled to urge this ground before us for the following reasons, namely :