Holding

Rules 845 and 847 of the Bihar Police Manual relate only to cases of conviction, and the departmental proceedings did not violate natural justice as the officers were afforded full opportunity to defend themselves.

Summary

Three police constables were accused of robbery under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. While the criminal trial was pending, the authorities initiated departmental proceedings under the Bihar Police Manual. The constables were later acquitted in the criminal case, but the departmental inquiry led to their termination. They filed writ petitions contending that Rules 845 and 847 of the Manual, which restrict departmental action to cases of conviction, barred such proceedings, and that Rule 828(b) required written notice and a fair hearing, alleging a breach of natural justice. The Patna High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the rules applied only to convictions and that the officers had been given full opportunity to defend themselves. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court, finding no violation of natural justice and dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether departmental proceedings under Rules 845 and 847 of the Bihar Police Manual can be initiated against police officers when the criminal case has resulted in acquittal or is still pending.
Whether the initiation of departmental proceedings without written notice as per Rule 828(b) violates the principles of natural justice.
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petitions challenging the departmental proceedings.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 392, s. 411

Subjects

departmental proceedingspolice manualnatural justiceacquittalcriminal caseRule 845Rule 847disciplinary actionpolice constablewrit petition

Judgment

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 452

A RAM TAWEKYA SHARMA
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5186 of 2008)
AUGUST 21, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB
ALAM, JJ.]

Bihar Police Manual; rr. 828, 844, 845, 846 &JB47:
C Commission of robbery by police constables - Pending
criminal proceedings initiation of departmental proceedings
against errant constables - Correctness of - Held: Accused
employee informed about non - participation in the
departmental proceedings till decision in the criminal
D proceedings by the court - Departmental proceedings
initiated by authorities in terms of Police Manual - No
complaint about defect in enquiry made by accused - High
Court has categorically concluded in its findings that full
opportunity granted and requisite procedure has been .. 'I!'
E complied with by the authorities - Thus, there was no violation
of principles of natural justice - Hence, no interference with
the findings of the High Court called for - Principles of natural
justice - Compliance with.
Appellant, police constables allegedly committed
F robbery on 12.10.1991, they were chased and
apprehended by the locals. They were handed over to -¥
the police and the money was recovered from their .
possession. Police registered a Case against them for
alleged commission of offences punishable under
G Sections· 392 and 411 of the Indian ·Penal Code, 1960
and simultaneously departmental proceedings· were also
initi.ated against them. Accused-police constables filed
a Writ P~tition challengrng the initiatio.n of the
. departmental proceeding; In the meantime the trial court
H 452
. RAM TAWEKYA'SHARMA v. STATE OF 453
BIHAR & ORS.
T
acquitted the appell~nt. However, the departmental A
proceedings resulted in termination of services of the
appellants. The Writ Petition was disposed of on the
ground that the departmental proceeding has since been
concluded. Aggrieved, the accused filed further writ
petitions, which were disposed of by a common order B
-+-
r by the High Court upholding order of dismissal of the
accused. Another writ petition was filed, in which-~
~
accused had taken the stand that in terms of Rule 847
of the Bihar Police Manual no departmental proceedings
could have been initiated till the time for preferring an c
appeal expires. The Single J.udge referred the matter to
the Division Bench. Tne Division Bench of the High Court
dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
D
HELD: Rules 845 and 847 of the Bihar Police M_anual
only relate to cases of conviction . .It is significant to note
..,. that the appellant and the two other employees who
were proceeded against in departmental proceeding had
written to the authorities that they were not participating
in the departmental proceeding, till a decision .is given E
by the criminal court. They also declined to cross:
examine the witnesses produced in the. departmental
proceeding. So far as the first writ petition is concerned,
the stay order was passed on 6.1.1992 i.e .. ·much after ·
'f when the appellant and the two others had refused to F
participate in the departmental proceedings. As rightly
noted by the High Court, in the earlier Writ petition only
two points were urged and no complaint was made of
any defect in the enquiry. Therefore, the High Court
rightly concluded the stand to be without substance. As G
...... regards Rule 828(b) of the Police Manual, the High Court
has categorically concluded that full opportunity was
granted to accused and requisite procedure has been
complied with, hence there was no violation of the
principles of natural justice. [Para 8] [457-GH, 458-A-C] H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
5186 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2004 of
the High Court of Judicature at Patna in C.W.l.C. No. 4205 of
1996
B
P.S. Mishra, Dhruv Kumar Jha, TathagaL H. Vardhan,
Upendra Mishra, Ravi C. Prakash ·and C.D. Singh for the
Appellant.
Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar and Sujoya Bardhan for the
C Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a
0
Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissing the writ
petition filed by the appellant.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
E Alleging that appellant and his companions committed
robbery on certain persons on 12.10.1991, they were chased
by the local people and were apprehended. The three accused
persons were police constables. They were handed over to
the police and the money which was robbed by them was
also recovered from their possession. Police registered Case
F No. Budha Colony Police Case No.319 of 1991 for alleged
commission of offences punishable under Sections 392 and
411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 (in short the 'IPC'). The
departmental authorities almost simultaneously initiated
departmental proceedings. On 6.1.1992 a Writ Petition filed
G by the appellant and the few others were listed before the
Patna High Court. The same was numbered as CWJC No.
7846 of 1991. Challenge was to the initiation of the proce.eding.
In the meantime the criminal court had taken cognizance.
During the pendency of the departmental proceedings, the
H trial was concluded and the appellant was acquitted by order
.I

RAM TAWEKYA SHARMA v. STATE OF 455
BfHAR & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
~

dated 18.12.1992. The Writ Petition was disposed of on the A
ground that the departmental proceeding has since been
concluded. The appellant was terminated by order dated
4.7.1992. The internal remedy i.e. departmental appeal was
., I
availed. Three writ petitions were filed by the three accused
persons. Petitioner's Writ petition was numbered as CWJC B
• +- No. 5457 of 1994. All the three writ petitions were disposed
. ~
~.4
of by a common order on 22.5.1995. Two points were urged
-Ii. before the High Court. The first was that in view of the acquittal,
no order of termination could be passed; secondly, the copy
of the enquiry report was not supplied. First point was rejected
by the High Court and so far as the second point is concerned
c
the High Court directed supply of the copy of the enquiry report.
The copy was supplied by the DIG and subsequently the order
of dismissal was upheld. Another writ petition was filed, in
which the stand taken was that in terms of Rule 847 of the
! D
Bihar Police Manual (in short the 'Manual') no departmental
1 proceedings could have been initiated till the time for
preferring an appeal expires. Reliance was placed on the
~
view expressed in another Writ petition.
Learned Single Judge who heard the matter took a E
1 different view and referred the matter to the Division Bench.
The stand of the appellant in the writ petition was that there
was violation of Rule 828 (b) and 847 as there was no scope
for dismissal unless informed in writing. Reliance was also
placed on a decision of this Court in Capt. M. Paulanthony F
)I. v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. [1999 (3) SCC 679]. The
High Court did not accept the stand of the appellant and
dismissed the writ petition. It was held that the Rules in question
form the part of the Manual and form part of the caption
"Criminal Prosecution". Referring to Rule 847 it was held that
G
if the criminal case has terminated in conviction, in that case
.... the departmental proceedings shall not be taken until the
appeal or order of conviction has been heard, or the time
allowed of the appeal has expired. But there is nothing in the
rules that once there is an allegation against the police
H
..
~-

'
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

--r
A personnel for which-a criminal case has been instituted, then
no departmental proceeding shall be instituted till the criminal
case is concl.uded. As regards the non.;observance of certain
formalities in the d·epartmer:ital proceedings, the High Court
.. noted that in the earlier Writ Petition only two points were
6 urged and .there was no complain~ of the defects in the enquiry.
'-~

As regards non-observance of the provisions contained in ~
Rule 828(b) of the Manual, the High Court noted that all the I '

requisite formalities have been ·observed and adequate
.I

opportunity of defending himself was given to the appellant..
c 4. In· support· of the appeal learned counsel for the
appellant r~iterated the stand taken before the High Gou.rt,
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
supported the impugned judgment of the High Court.-·
·D 6. The relevant rule reads as follows:
"844. Superintendent to examine records of cases against
police officers. - The Superintendent shall go. through the
x
record of every case brough~ against a Police Officer in
the courts, af'1d shall take/initiate departmental cognizance
E of every criminal case in which a Police Officer is convicted
or acquitted or discHarged (except when the case is
declared false) and record. an order in writi.ng (see Rule
843).

F 845. Effect of imprisonment - Every Police Officer
imprisonment for an offence implying morarturpitude, sue" - -l<
as theft, perjury, etc., or for a serious.breach of discipline
such as allowing a prisoner.to escape, sleeping on sentry
duty, etc.,shall be proceeded against with a view to
G
dismissal, and shaH ordinarily be dismissed. He- shall
receive. his pay up to the date of ceasing to perform his.
duties. · · · ·· >.

846. Effect of a fine- When a Police Officer is sentenced
to fine by a criminal court, it is within the Superintendent's
H discretion to draw up/initiate proceedings with a view to
RAM TAWEKYA SHARMA v. STATE OF 457
BIHAR & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
)f""
dismissal. A
847. From the charge in such cases - The charge in
proceedings under rules 845-and 846 shall be that the
accused has been convicted, imprisoned or fined, as the
case may be, for the offence concerned. Such proceedings
shall not be taken until the appeal against the order of B
i
conviction has been heard or the time allowed for appeal
has expired."
7. As the factual scenario described above goes to show,
only two points were urged before the high Court in the earlier c
writ petition, one of them related to the effect of acquittal. The
High Court had rejected the plea and the matter was not
carried forward. Other grievance related to non-supply of the
copy of enquiry report. As regards that, the High Court has
directed supply of the copy which has in fact been done.
D
8. So far as the points raised presently are concerned,
there is no dispute that only two points were urged in the
~

7- earlier writ petition and as rightly noted by the High Court the
first point related to the effect of acquittal. Other point found
acceptance by the High Court and the first plea was rejected. E
So far as the supply of copy aspect is concerned it is not
disputed that the copy was supplied. The stands presently
urged admittedly were not urged in the earlier writ petition.
There was no challenge to the earlier direction regarding
supply of copy only. That was done on the basis of the F
>- decisions of this Court in Unjon of India & Ors. v. Mohd.
Ramzan Khan (AIR 1991 SC 471) and in Managing Director
ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar [AIR 1994 SC 1074]. It is
to be noted that Rules 845 and 847 only relate to cases of
conviction. It is significant to note that the appellant and the
G
two other employees who were proceeded against in
-' departmental proceeding had written to the authorities that
they were not participating in the departmental proceeding, till
a decision is given by the criminal court. They also declined
to cross examine the witnesses produced in the departmental
H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

-r
A proceeding. So far as the first writ petition is con·cerned, the
stay order was passed on 6.1.1992 i.e. much after 15.11.1991
when the appellant and the two others had refused to
participate in the departmental proceedings. As rightly noted
by the High Court, in the earlier Writ petition only two points ·
B were urged and no complaint was made of any defect during
the enquiry.· Therefore, the High Court rightly concluded the 4
stand to be without substance. As regards Rule 828(b) the
High Court has categorically concluded that full opportunity
was granted and requisite procedure has been complied with.
c Therefore it was held that there was no violation of the
,
i:
principles of n.atural justice.
9. Above being the position the appeal is without merit,
deserves dismissal, which we direct.
S.K.S. Appeal dismissed.
D

~
~

) ...