Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 7548 OF 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 19150 of 2008)
Surendra Prasad Shukla ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... Respondents
O R D E R
A. K. PATNAIK, J.
Leave granted.
2. This is an appeal by way of special leave under
Article 136 of the Constitution against the order dated
09.06.2008 of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand
High Court in L.P.A. No. 176 of 2008 (for short `the
impugned order').
3. The facts very briefly are that the appellant was
recruited as a Constable in the Bihar State Police on
07.08.1971 and he was later on promoted to the post
of Head Constable (Hawaldar). On 04.07.2004, a
complaint was lodged in the Muzaffarpur Sadar Police
2
Station that three unknown persons had snatched a
car, which was registered as Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S.
Case No. 139 of 2004 under Section 392 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short `the I.P.C.'). The police recovered
the stolen car on 13.07.2004 from the government
quarters occupied by the appellant and arrested the son
of the appellant, Raju Shukla @ Rajiv Shukla alongwith
two others who were involved in the theft of the car.
The appellant was suspended and a memo of charges
was served on him on 20.07.2004 charging him with the
misconduct of negligence, indiscipline, conduct
unbecoming of a police personnel. It was also alleged
that he had harboured the accused Raju Shukla. He
was asked to submit his explanation. The appellant
submitted his reply on 26.07.2004 to the
Superintendent of Police, Purvi Singhbhoom,
Jamshedpur (for short the `disciplinary authority')
stating inter alia that in the evening of 12.07.2004 he
had been to Tulailadugri T.O.P. for duty and he was
patrolling in that area the whole night and that when he
returned to his government quarters in the morning
3
around 6:15 a.m. on 13.07.2004, he saw the police of
Muzaffarpur Sadar Police Station at his government
quarters, who had arrested his son alongwith two
others, and had seized the stolen Matiz car. He also
stated in his reply that he did not get any time to
question his son and that he had no idea that his son
was involved in the crime. The enquiry officer then
carried out the enquiry and submitted his report
holding the appellant guilty of the charges and the
disciplinary authority after considering enquiry report
took the view that in the circumstances it was not
reasonable that the appellant should serve the police
force and passed an order of dismissal against him. The
appellant carried an appeal to the Deputy Inspector
General, Singhbhoom, but the appeal was dismissed.
Thereafter, the appellant filed a revision before the
Inspector General of Police, but the same was also
rejected.
4. The appellant then filed Writ Petition (s) No. 6728
of 2006 under Article 226 of the Constitution in the
Jharkhand High Court challenging his dismissal from
4
service. The learned Single Judge of the High Court
dismissed the Writ Petition by order dated 30.04.2008.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed L.P.A. No. 176 of 2008 and
the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the
L.P.A. by the impugned order. When the Special Leave
Petition was heard on 17.10.2008, this Court issued
notice to the respondent to show-cause why the
punishment of dismissal should not be altered to
compulsory retirement. In response to the notice,
respondent no.4 has appeared and filed his counter
affidavit and has contended that the appellant is guilty
of keeping the robbed Matiz car and giving shelter to the
accused persons in his house and has not informed the
matter to the higher authorities and that the conduct of
the appellant has tarnished the image of the police force
and that the punishment of dismissal should not be
altered to compulsory retirement.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and we find that the misconduct alleged against the
appellant was that he had harboured the accused Raju
Shukla in the government quarters occupied by him
5
and the stolen car was recovered from the yard in front
of the government quarters. The enquiry officer has
recorded a finding that the appellant was guilty of the
misconduct. The disciplinary authority accepted the
finding of the enquiry officer and was of the view that
the appellant should not any longer serve the police
force and dismissed him from service and the appellate
authority and the revisional authority have agreed with
the disciplinary authority. As the appellant was
working as a Head Constable, it was his duty to enquire
from his son about the car kept in front of the
government quarters occupied by him, and by not
performing this duty he was guilty of negligence. The
fact that the son of the appellant, who was an accused
in an offence under Section 392 IPC, and his
accomplices were found in the government quarters
under the occupation of the appellant and the fact that
the stolen car was also recovered from the yard in front
of his government quarters were sufficient to hold the
appellant guilty of negligence which affected the image
of the police force in the area and for such negligence
6
the authorities were right in taking the view that the
appellant should not be retained in police service.
6. The question which however arises for our decision
is whether such negligence of the appellant was
sufficient for the disciplinary authority to dismiss him
from service. There was no charge against the appellant
that he had in any way aided or abetted the offence
under Section 392 IPC or that he knew that his son had
stolen the car and yet he did not inform the police. The
appellant, as we have held, was guilty of negligence of
not having enquired from his son about the car kept in
front of the government quarters occupied by him. The
appellant had served the government as a Constable
and thereafter as a Head Constable from 07.08.1971 till
he was dismissed from service on 28.02.2005, i.e. for 34
years, and for such long service he had earned pension.
In our considered opinion, the punishment of dismissal
of the appellant from service so as to deprive him of his
pension for the service that he had rendered for long 34
years was shockingly disproportionate to the negligence
proved against him.
7
7. We accordingly, allow this appeal in part and
modify the punishment of dismissal from service to
compulsory retirement. The L.P.A. and the Writ Petition
filed by the appellant before the High Court are allowed
in part. There shall be no order as to costs.
..........................J.
(R.V.
Raveendran)
..........................J.
(A. K. Patnaik)
New Delhi,
September 01, 2011.
