- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bhagat Singh v. State Of Punjab .
Factual and Procedural Background
Bhagat Singh, a member of the Punjab Police appointed in 1931, was acting as an Assistant Sub-Inspector and functioning as a Police Censor when he allegedly detained private letters, copied or photographed them, and later used the material for blackmail. On 14 January 1944 he was reverted to his substantive rank of Head Constable. A departmental enquiry was instituted by the Superintendent of Police on 21 January 1944, and he was dismissed from service on 25 January 1944.
Administrative appeals to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and the Inspector-General of Police were unsuccessful, as were subsequent memorials to the Punjab Government. In February 1949 Bhagat Singh filed a civil suit challenging the dismissal. The trial court held the dismissal void for non-compliance with Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and the District Judge affirmed that view on first appeal. The Punjab Government’s second appeal succeeded: the High Court ruled that Section 243, not Section 240(3), governed subordinate police ranks and upheld the dismissal. Bhagat Singh obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, resulting in the present decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, which requires a second show-cause notice before dismissal, applies to members of the subordinate ranks of the police forces in view of Section 243 of the Act.
- Whether the departmental enquiry breached material provisions of the Punjab Police Regulations, thereby vitiating the dismissal.
- Whether, in light of Sections 29 and 35 of the Police Act, 1861, a Superintendent of Police could conduct a departmental enquiry on allegations that also constituted a criminal offence.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- Section 240(3) protects police officers of subordinate rank; nothing in Section 243 deprives them of that safeguard.
- Even if only the Police Regulations apply, the enquiry was fatally defective because the appellant was denied:
- adequate opportunity to present defence evidence,
- full opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, and
- permission to make a statement or file a written explanation.
- Sections 29 and 35 of the Police Act mandate that offences by police officers above the rank of constable be tried by a First-Class Magistrate, precluding a departmental enquiry by the Superintendent of Police.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The enquiry conformed to the Punjab Police Regulations and principles of natural justice; any procedural lapses were minor.
- Section 243 is a special provision governing conditions of service of subordinate police ranks and excludes the operation of Section 240(3).
- The Police Act does not bar departmental proceedings even when criminal prosecution is also possible.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| North-West Frontier Province v. Suraj Narain Anand (1948 F.C.R. 103) | The non-obstante clause in Section 243 excludes Section 240 for subordinate police ranks; “conditions of service” include dismissal. | Cited to support the view that Section 243 displaces Section 240(3) for subordinate police officers like the appellant. |
| High Commissioner for India & High Commissioner for Pakistan v. I.M. Lall (1948 F.C.R. 44) | Explains the requirement of a second notice under Section 240(3) and its scope. | Referred to show that, because Section 240(3) is inapplicable under Section 243, the appellant could not rely on the second-notice requirement. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Issue 1 – Applicability of Section 240(3): Section 243 expressly governs “subordinate ranks of the various police forces” and begins with a non-obstante clause. The Court held that, for such officers, conditions of service are determined exclusively by the Police Act and regulations, thereby excluding Section 240(3). The appellant, being in the subordinate rank, could not claim the protection of a second show-cause notice. The subsequent incorporation of Section 240(3)’s substance into the Police Regulations in September 1946 did not assist him because his dismissal pre-dated that amendment.
Issue 2 – Alleged Violations of the Police Regulations: The Court examined the three specific complaints. It found that (a) the appellant was invited to produce defence evidence but declined, (b) the prosecution witnesses were in fact cross-examined by him “at length,” and (c) there was no evidence that he was prevented from explaining incriminating circumstances. Any procedural lapses were minor and did not amount to a serious contravention warranting judicial interference.
Issue 3 – Competence of Departmental Enquiry under the Police Act: Sections 29 and 35 merely prescribe criminal penalties and the class of magistrate competent to try offences by police personnel; they do not preclude parallel departmental proceedings. The Court rejected the contention that the Superintendent of Police lacked authority to conduct the enquiry.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The appeal is DISMISSED. No order as to costs.
Implications: The judgment re-affirms that officers of subordinate police ranks are governed by Section 243 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and are not entitled to a second show-cause notice under Section 240(3). It also clarifies that departmental enquiries may proceed even where the alleged misconduct constitutes an offence under the Police Act, 1861, provided the enquiry meets the requirements of the relevant Police Regulations. The decision primarily affects the parties and does not announce a new constitutional principle, but it solidifies the interpretation of Sections 240 and 243 in relation to police personnel.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
BHAGAT SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
21/07/1960
BENCH:
WANCHOO, K.N.
BENCH:
WANCHOO, K.N.
GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.
HIDAYATULLAH, M.
GUPTA, K.C. DAS
SHAH, J.C.
CITATION:
1960 AIR 1210
ACT:
Government Servant--Dismissal--Member of subordinate rank of police forces--Police officer committing
Offence--Departmental enquiry and
dismissal--Validity--Dismissal from service without fresh show cause notice--Legality--Police Act, 1861 (V of 1861), SS. 29, 35--Government of India Act, 1935 (25 & 26 Geo. 5, Ch. 42), SS. 240(3), 243.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant, who was employed in the Punjab Police, was found while working as a Police Censor to have detained certain letters illegally and later to have made use of copies and photographs of the them for blackmail. He was consequently reverted to his substantive post of head constable on January 14, 1944. Thereafter an enquiry was started against him by the Superintendent of Police and eventually he was dismissed from service on January 25, 1944. His representations to higher authorities having failed he instituted a-suit challenging the legality of the order of dismissal on the grounds, inter alia, (1) that S. 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, had not been complied with, and (2) that as the appellant was alleged to have committed a criminal offence the Superintendent of Police could not hold a departmental enquiry in respect of such allegations in view of SS. 29 and 35 of the Police Act,
1861.
Held : (1) that S. 243 of the Government of India Act, 1935,
65
which was a special provision with regard to the subordinate ranks of police forces in India, excluded the operation of S. 24G(3) of the Act to the appellant, who was, therefore, governed by the conditions of service as provided under the Police Regulations, and that the substance of s. 240(3) which was brought into the Police Regulations in September 1946 long after the appellant had been dismissed was not applicable to him. Accordingly, he was not entitled to the second notice, under S. 240(3), giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to
1
be taken in regard to him. North-West Frontier Province v. Suraj Narain Anand [1948] F.C.R. 103 and High Commissioner for India and High Commis- sioner for Pakistan v. I. M. Lal, [1948] F.C.R. 44, referred to.
(2) that the provisions of the Police Act, 1861, relating to offences committed by a police officer above the rank of a constable do not bar a departmental enquiry in respect of a matter where it is also possible to prosecute such an officer under that Act.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1957. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated November 29, 1954, of the Punjab High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 891 of 1951.
Hardayal Hardy and N. N. Keswani, for the appellant. N. S. Bindra and D. Gupta, for the respondent. 1960. July 21. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Punjab High Court in a service matter. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are that the appellant was appointed as a foot- constable in 1931 in the Punjab Police and was dismissed on January 25, 1944. Shortly before, he was acting as an Assistant Sub-Inspector and actually working as a Police Censor. The charge against him was that while he was working as Police Censor, he detained certain letters illegally and had copies and photo- graphs made of them and later used these copies and photographs for blackmail. He was consequently reverted to his substantive post of head constable on
9
66
January 14, 1944. Thereafter on January 21, 1944, an enquiry was started against him by the Superintendent of Police and he was eventually dismissed. He went in appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, which was dismissed. He then went in revision to the Inspector General of Police, which also failed. Finally he made several representations and memorials to the Punjab Government but without avail. Consequently the present suit was filed by the appellant in February 1949. The plaint as originally filed, after narrating the facts relating to the appellant's service, merely stated that the charge of misconduct was brought against the appellant on account of enmity and that the departmental enquiry made by the Superintendent of Police was arbitrary and not according to law, rules and regulations prescribed for the same. Besides this vague general allegation, the only specific grievance made out by the appellant in the plaint was that the Superintendent of Police had dismissed him without recording his defence evidence and without giving him an opportunity to produce the same. The appellant amended the plaint later and added one more grievance, namely, that he had been appointed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and could only have been dismissed by him and not by the Superintendent of Police. As to the Departmental enquiry, certain further defects therein were pointed out besides the allegation already made that his defence had not been taken and that he had not been given an opportunity to produce it. Those further defects were (i) that he was not permitted to engage counsel, (ii) that he was not allowed full opportunity to crossexamine the prosecution witnesses, and
2
(iii) that he was not asked by the enquiry officer to state what he had to say in answer to the charge against him and was not permitted to file a written-statement explaining the alleged incriminating circumstances against him. The suit was opposed on behalf of the Punjab Government and among others their main defence was that the enquiry was in accordance with the
67
Regulations and was not arbitrary. It was also denied that no opportunity had been given to the appellant to lead defence evidence or to cross-examine prosecution witnesses or to make his own statement in answer to the charge. It was admitted that permission was refused to engage a counsel; but it was finally averred that taking the enquiry as a whole there was no such defect in its conduct as to invalidate it or call for interference by the courts. Three issues, all of a general nature, were framed by the trial court, namely--
1. Whether the plaintiff's dismissal is void, illegal, inoperative and wrongful and what is its effect ?
2. Whether the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suit or to go into the question of the validity of the departmental enquiry ?
3. Whether the suit for a declaration lies and is competent and why ?
It is unfortunate that the specific points raised by the appellant whatever they were were not made the subject- matter of specific issues. However, the trial court came to the conclusion that the case of the appellant was governed by s. 240(3) of the Government India Act, 1935; and it was reinforced in this conclusion by the Police Regulations which, according to it, provided for the same safeguards as were contained in s. 240(3).
It therefore held that as s. 240(3) had not been complied with, the dismissal was void and illegal.. As to the other two issues relating to the jurisdiction of civil courts they were decided in favour of the appellant.
There was an appeal to the District Judge by the Punjab Government. The District Judge agreed with the conclusions of the trial court on the applicability of s. 240(3) to the case of the appellant and further referred to an amendment in the Police Regulations which required that before an order of dismissal or reduction in rank is made, the officer to be punished shall be produced before the officer empowered to punish him and shall be informed of the charges
68
proved against him and called upon to show cause why an order of dismissal or reduction in rank should not be passed. The District Judge was conscious that this amendment in the Regulations was made in September 1946 long after the dismissal of the appellant and therefore would not apply to the appellant's case; but he overruled this contention on the ground that the rule was merely declaratory of the law and only removed the ambiguity that might have arisen because of s. 243 of the Government of India Act. He therefore dismissed the appeal. Then followed a second appeal by the Punjab Government to the High Court. The High Court held that s. 240(3) did Dot apply to the case of the appellant and that s. 243 was the governing section. In consequence the High Court further held that the appellant was not entitled to the protection of s. 240(3) and as the amendment to the Police Regulations which brought in the substance of s. 240(3) therein was made after the dismissal of the appellant, he could not take advantage of it. As to the enquiry, the High Court held
3
that though there might have been minor procedural defects in the enquiry it was on the whole substantially in accordance with the Regulations and principles of natural justice and could not therefore be held to be invalid. The High Court pointed out that there was no serious contraven- tion of the Regulations and the witnesses who had appeared were cross-examined by the appellant who was also called upon to produce his defence within 48 hours. He however did not choose to do so and wanted a postponement which was refused and thereafter the Superintendent of Police proceeded to dismiss him.
Learned counsel for the appellant challenges the cor- erectness of the view taken by the High Court and three points have been urged on his behalf before us, namely, (1) s. 240(3) of the Government of India Act applied to police officers of subordinate rank and there was nothing in s. 243 which took away from such officers the protection of s. 240(3) ; (2) Even if the Police Regulations alone applied, there was such violation of the relevant regulations as to vitiate the enquiry
69
proceedings; and (3) The Superintendent of Police could not hold a departmental enquiry as a criminal offence had been committed, and reliance in this connection was placed on ss. 29 and 35 of the Police Act, No. V of 1861. Re. (1).
Section 243 of the Government of India Act appears in Chapter 11 of Part X dealing with 'Civil Services'. That Chapter begins with s. 240 and sub-s. (3) thereof provides that no member of a civil service or holding any civil post in India shall be dismissed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. Section 243 however is in these terms:-
" Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this chapter, the conditions of service of the subordinate ranks of the various police forces in India shall be such as may be determined by or under the Act relating to those forces respectively."
Obviously s. 243 was a special provision with regard to subordinate ranks of police forces in India and it is not in dispute that the appellant belonged to the subordinate ranks. Therefore according to s. 243, the conditions of service of the subordinate ranks are governed by or under the Acts relating to police forces and s. 240(3) can have no application to them. The non obstante clause of s. 243 makes it clear that so far as the subordinate ranks of police forces in India are concerned, a. 243 will apply and not the earlier provisions including s. 240(3). We are therefore of opinion that in view of the special provisions in s. 243 relating to the subordinate ranks of police forces in India (to which the appellant undoubtedly belonged), s. 240(3) would have no application. We may in this connection refer to the judgment of the Privy Council in North- West Frontier Province v. Suraj Narain Anand (1), where it was held that the non obstante clause in s. 243 excluded the operation of s. 240(2) in the case of subordinate ranks of police forces in India and that conditions of service included the right of dismissal.
(1) [1948] F.C.R. 103.
70
That case dealt with s. 240(2) but the same reasoning would in our opinion apply to s. 240(3). As has already been pointed out by the learned District Judge, the substance of s. 240(3) was brought into the Police Regulations in
4
September 1946 long after the appellant had been dismissed and would therefore not apply to the appellant. He would therefore not be entitled to the second notice under s. 240(3) as explained in I. M. Lall's case by the Privy Council: (See High Commissioner for India & High Commissioner for Pakistan v. I. M. Lall (1)). Nor was such notice necessary under the Police Regulations as they existed at the time of the appellant's dismissal. The view taken by the High Court under the circumstances is correct. Re. (2).
So far as violation of the material provisions of r. 16.24 of the Police Regulations is concerned, we find that only three specific allegations material for the purpose were set out by the appellant, namely, (i) that he was not given the chance to defend himself, (ii) that he was not allowed to cross-examine the prosecution Witnesses, and (iii) that he was not allowed to explain the circumstances appearing against him and was not allowed to file a written statement. It is enough in this connection to say that he was certainly given a chance to produce defence but did not himself avail of it. It also appears as found by the High Court that the witnesses were cross-examined by the appellant at length and on the whole there is nothing to show that he was not allowed to explain the circumstances appearing against him. We therefore agree with the High Court that there is no such serious contravention of the Regulations as to call for interference by the Courts.
Re. (3).
Reliance in this connection is placed on ss. 29 and 35 of the Police Act. Section 29 provides for penalties for neglect of duty etc. by police officers and lays down the extent of punishment on conviction by a magistrate. Section 35 defines what magistrate can try a
(1) [1948] F.C.R. 44.
71
charge against a police officer above the rank of a con- stable under the Police Act and such a magistrate has to be a First Class Magistrate. These sections nowhere exclude departmental enquiry. All that they lay down is that where an offence punishable under the Police Act is committed by a police officer above the rank of a constable and is to be tried by a court of law it has to go before a First Class Magistrate. That, however, does not mean that no departmental enquiry can be held with respect to a matter where it is also possible to prosecute a police officer under the Police Act. There is no force in this contention also and it is hereby rejected.
The appeal therefore fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances of this case we pass no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
5
Alert