STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE true import of the words - -"which indicates the commission by a police officer of a criminal offence in connection with his official relations with the public" as used in Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules has been the primary subject of debate in this appeal.

(2.) THE issue arises from facts which are not in serious dispute. Des Raj, Respondent had joined police service in the erstwhile State of Patiala in the year 1940 and it suffices to mention that after the creation of the State of Pepsu and its subsequent merger with the State of Punjab, he was integrated in the Punjab Police service as a Constable. In the year 1961, the Plaintiff was posted in the district of Sangrur and on the 4th of November of the said year he took official papers for delivery to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Barnala, and thereafter was returning by train from that place to Dhuri. Apparently he travelled in an intoxicated condition and had an affray with the passengers in the said compartment. Three passengers by the names of Darbara Singh, Bakhtawar Singh and Kasturi Lal took him in custody and handed him over to one Sain Das, Constable at Dhuri Railway Station in a drunken condition with the complaint that he had insulted the above -said persons in the compartment of the train . Constable Sain Das above -said took the Respondent to the Railway Post, Dhuri, where Labhu Ram, Sub -Inspector got him medically examined and it was discovered that he was smelling of liquor, but nevertheless could talk intelligently. Owing to this misconduct, the Station Souse Officer of the Government Railway Police, Dhuri, submitted the relevant papers through proper channel to the Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, who ordered a departmental enquiry by the Inspector of Police at Sangrur. On receipt of the report of this enquiry the Superintendent of Police passed the order of dismissal against the Respondent with effect from the 18th of April, 1962. The Respondent then brought the suit from which the proceedings arise claiming that the order of dismissal was null and void, without jurisdiction and that the Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, was not competent to remove him from service. An infraction of Rule 16.38 and Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules was expressly alleged and it was further averred that the Plaintiff -Respondent had not been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause regarding his removal from service. The Punjab State contested the suit and controverted the allegations in the plaint except the fact that the Plaintiff was employed as a member of the Police Force on the relevant date and that he had been duly dismissed by the Superintendent of Police, who it was averred was competent to do so. On these pleadings the following issues were framed: - -

(3.) THE suit was first dismissed in 1965, but on appeal being carried was remanded for redecision after framing an additional issue as follows: - -