RANJIT SINGH Vs. COMMANDANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Ranjit Singh, in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution, is Head Constable Police in the Punjab Armed Police. On February 29, 1960, he was posted to guard Sutlej Bridge (Ludhiana side ). At about 1-20 p. m. he left the bridge for Phillour to purchase vegetables. Instead of going to Phillour, he proceeded to the Punjab Armed Police Headquarters at Jullundur Cantt. , where he reached at about 2-30 p. m. and had a talk with Sub-Inspector Balbir Singh, the posting clerk, in regard to his transfer. He returned to the Sutlej Bridge at about 3-45 p. m. and recorded a false entry in the daily diary that he had come back after performing his duties, that is to say, after making purchases from Phillour. An enquiry was held into the charges resulting from this conduct of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, on the evidence, found against the petitioner. On September 3, 1960, the Commandant of the Punjab Armed Police at Jullundur Cantt. , on those findings ordered the forfeiture permanently of two years' approved service of the petitioner, reducing his pay from Rs. 66 to Rs. 60 per mensem, with a direction that during the period of suspension the petitioner was to draw one-half pav and full allowances already ordered separately. The departmental appeal and revision of the petitioner failed.

(2.) THE petitioner then filed the present petition under the Articles stated, questioning the constitutional validity of the order made against him on the ground of non-compliance with Sub-article (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution, because, he says, the penalty of forfeiture of service and reduction of pay in his case amounts to reduction in rank, and it has been imposed without complying with the aforesaid constitutional provision. This case first came for hearing before my learned brother, Shamsher Bahadur J. , who, on December 8, 1985, referred it for hearing by a larger Bench because of conflict of authority on the question: raghunath Sahota v. The State, ILR (1954) Cut 684, and Rupnarain Singh v. State of Orissa, AIR 1959 Ori 167, having taken the view that reduction by way of punishment to a lower stage in the same time-scale of pay amounts to reduction in rank within the meaning of Sub-article (2) of Article 311, and Badri Pratap gupta v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1958 Raj 239, and, in this Court, Faqir Chand v. Senior Supdt. of Police, Ferozepur, L. P. A. No. 83 of 1960, dated 11-1-1961 (Punj), by a Division Bench consisting of Khosla, C. f. and Dulat J. , having taken the contrary view.

(3.) IN the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Volume II, Chapter XVI Rule 16. 1 deals with departmental punishments, and at serial No. 3 is the punishment of 'reduction' and at No. 3 the punishment of 'stoppage of increment or forfeiture of approved service for increment. Rule 16. 4 (1) explains in detail the meaning and scope of the punishment of 'reduction and reads thus: