Holding

The High Court erred in dismissing the second appeal in limine; the appeal is allowed and the case remitted for fresh disposal.

Summary

Nachhattar Singh, a constable of the Punjab Police, was convicted under IPC sections 325 and 34 and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment, leading to his dismissal from service. He filed a suit challenging the dismissal, which the trial court dismissed as barred by limitation; the First Appellate Court reversed, holding the dismissal void for arbitrariness and that the limitation bar did not apply. The State appealed, and the High Court dismissed the second appeal in limine without hearing. The Supreme Court held that serious questions of law—particularly the mandatory nature of Rule 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules and the applicability of limitation law—required full consideration, and therefore the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal.

Issues considered

Whether the suit challenging the dismissal of a police officer is barred by the Limitation Act.
Whether Rule 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 mandatorily requires dismissal of an officer sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month.
Whether a second appeal under Section 102 of the CPC can be dismissed in limine when serious questions of law are involved.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 102
Punjab Police Rules, 1934s. Rule 16.2(2)

Subjects

dismissal from servicepolice officerrigorous imprisonmentlimitation periodsecond appealin limine dismissalarbitrarinessdiscriminationPunjab Police Rules

Judgment

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
A
v.
NACHHATTAR SINGH \
-'>-.
APRIL 30, 1990

B [LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Section JOO-Second Appeal-
Serious question of law involved-High Court not to dismiss the appeal T
in limine.

Punjab Police Rules, 1934: Rule 16.2(2)-Police Officer-Con-
c viction of-Dismissal from service-Suit challenging dismissal-Period
of limitation-What is.
J
-
The respondent, a constable, convicted under sections 325 /34 of
the Indian Penal Code along with another co-accused constable and
D dismissed from service, filed a suit challenging his dismissal, which was
dismissed by the trial court holding that it was barred by limitation. On
appeal the First Appellate Court decreed his suit by holding that the
respondent-plaintiff was discriminated because his co-accused was
re-instated in service pursuant to the decision in the suit filed by the
co-accused; his dismissal was void on the ground of arbitrariness, and
E the bar of limitation was not applicable. '~
I

The defendant-appellant filed a regular second appeal against the
aforesaid decree before the High Court which was dismissed in limine.

In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appel-
F lant that the High Court erred in dismissing the second appeal in
limine.

Allowing the appeal, this Court,

HELD: I. Serious questions of law are involved in this case and
G they should not have been lightly brushed aside by the High Court in the
manner it has been done. Therefore the High Court erred in dismissing
the second appeal in limine. [824F; 825D)

2. Rule 16.2 (2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 mandatorily --"
directs that a police officer judicially sentenced to rigorous imprison-
H ment exceeding one month shall be dismissed, and this mandate of law

822
STATE OF PUNJAB v. NACHHATTAR SINGH [SHARMA, J.] 823

cannot be -ignored on the ground that in the case of another member of
/ the police force a mistake was committed. [824F]
A
.....->-.

3. The appellant's assertion that the respondent's co-accused who
was ·reinstated in service pursuant to the Court's decision was subse-
quently dismissed has not been denied by the respondent. The case is,
therefore, remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal. [824G; 82SD] B

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4055
of 1987.

-"''
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.8.1987 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 2092 of 1987.
c
C.M. Nayar for the Appellants.

R.P. Agarwal and U.S. Prasad for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D

SHARMA, J. This appeal of the State of Punjab by special leave
arises out of a suit filed by the respondent, Nachhattar Singh. The
plaintiff-respondent was serving the State Police as a constable when
an incident took place on 17 .2.1971, which led to the prosecution of
the plaintiff along with the Head Constable Kahan Singh and the Sub- E
Inspector Baldev Singh. The charge made against the plaintiff was that
he physically assaulted and detained one Gurdial Singh. The accused
were tried and Baldev Singh was acquitted. So far the plaintiff and
Kahan Singh were concerned, they were found guilty under s. 325 read
with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and several other sections, and
i were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months each. The F
--t- conviction was maintained up to the Supreme Court stage. The Senior
Superintendent of Police, Patiala, thereafter dismissed the plaintiff on
20.4.1976. This order of dismissal was challenged as illegal in the pre-
sent suit which was instituted on 6.11.1982.

2. Besides taking several technical objections, the suit was G
defended on merits, as well as on the ground of limitation. From the
judgment of the trial court it appears that only two questions were
pressed by the parties, namely, whether the suit was barred by limita-
tion and whether the order of dismissal was illegal on the ground that
the plaintiff was not served with a show cause notice before the
impugned order was passed. Both the issues were decided by the learned H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A Subordinate Judge against the plaintiff and the suit was accordingly \
dismissed.

3. The plaintiff appealed against the decision. It appears that
before the Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal, it was
contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the other accused constable
B Kahan Singh, who was also convicted with the plaintiff, had also filed a
separate suit against his dismissal from service, which was decreed
with an observation that it was open to the competent authorities to
pass fresh order of punishment in accordance with law, but while no
further punishment was awarded to Kahan Singh, the respondent's
service stands terminated.A plea of discrimination was taken on this
basis which was accepted by the first appellate court and the suit was
C decreed. On the question of limitation the court after a very brief
discussion in the judgment held that the impugned order of dismissal
was void on the ground of arbitrariness and, therefore, the bar of
limitation would not apply. It was further observed that this decision
would not preclude the authority to award a minor punishment, pro-
D vided such a punishment has been awarded to the other police officials
tried and convicted along with him. The authority was also permitted
to take a decision in regard to the pay and allowance for the period the
plaintiff remained out of service because of his being in jail.

4. The defendant-appellants filed a regular second appeal before
E the High Court against the decree of the first appellate court which
was dismissed at the admission stage by merely saying:-

"HEARD. DISMISSED"

It has been contended on behalf of the appellants, and in our view
-
F correctly, that serious questions of law are in1(olved in this case and the
High Court erred in dismissing the second appeal in limine. It has been
argued that Rule 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules., 1934 mandatorily
directs that a police officer judicially sentenced to rigorous imprison-
ment exceeding one month shall be dismissed, and this mandate of law
cannot be ignored on the ground that in the case of another member of
G the police force a mistake was committed. Besides, it has been
asserted on oath before this Court and not denied by the respondent
that the aforesaid Kahan Singh had to be re-instated in service for a __ ..,
short time in pursuance of the decision in the suit as the order of his
dismissal had been passed by an authority not competent in this
regard, and that later he was again dismissed. It has also been pointed
H out that another convicted constable Surinder Singh was given the
STATE OF PUNJAB v. NACHHATTAR SINGH [SHARMA, J.J 825

,I benefit of probation by the criminal court and his case, therefore, is A
..'- distinguishable. Even in the concluding portion of the last paragraph
of the judgment of the Additional District Judge, the possibility that
"the other police officials convicted with him" (that is, the plaintiff)
might have been later punished, is recognised.

5. It has been further urged on behalf of the appellants that the B
finding of the Additional District Judge on the question of limitation is
patently illegal inasmuch as the judgment assumes that no law of limi-
tation is applicable to suits where an order is impugned as being void.
The High Court should have examined the plaint for finding out the
cause of action for the suit and then in that light determined the
correct article of the Limitation Act applicable to the case. Serious c
objection has been taken against the observations of the first appellate
court permitting the competent authority to inflict only minor punish-
ment on the plaintiff in certain conditions, and the direction about the
payment of the salary and the other emoluments. After hearing the
learned counsel for the parties, we agree with the appellants that the
question involved in this suit should not have been lightly brushed D
aside by the High Court in the manner it has been done. We, there-
fore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the case to it
for fresh disposal in accordance with law. It will be open to the appel-
lants to file an application for admitting additional evidence in regard
to the further orders passed against Kahan Singh subsequent to the
civil court's decree in his favour, and to argue before the High Court E
that the case of the present plaintiff is distinguishable. The High Court
should call for the records and decide the case finally at the motion
stage itself as the case is an old one. In the event of admission of fresh
evidence, the High Court shall permit the plaintiff to file relevant
rebutting evidence. The operation of the decree of the first appellate
court shall remain stayed till the final disposal of the second appeal by F
the High Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no
order as to costs.

T.N.A. Appeal allowed.