IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2144  OF 2012

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C)NO.26602 OF 2010)  

MD. MASAUD ALAM   ... APPELLANT VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.   ... RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1) Leave granted.

2) A  Constable,  whose  services  are  terminated  from  the  Police  Department,  has  filed  this  appeal impugning the judgment and order passed  by the Division Bench of the High Court of  Judicature  at  Patna  in  L.P.A.  No.  583/2006  dated 30.04.2010. By the impugned judgment and  order, the Division Bench has set aside the  order passed by the learned Single Judge in  Writ  Petition  No.1314/2000  dated  17.02.2006,  by  which  the  appellant  was  reinstated  into  service  with  full  back-wages  and  service  benefits.

1

3) The  case  has  a  chequered  history.  The  appellant was appointed as police constable by  the respondents in the month of October, 1992  and  he  served  on  this  post  till  1996.  The  appellant  amongst  others,  was  asked  to  show  cause  why  his  services  should  not  be  terminated  for  the  reasons  stated  in  the  notice.  The appellant, after receipt of the  notice,  had  offered  his  explanation,  inter- alia, contending that his appointment was made  following the guidelines prescribed in Police  Order No.202 of 1988.  The respondents, not  being satisfied with the explanation offered,  terminated the services of the appellant.  The  appellant and others filed the writ petitions,  inter-alia,  for  quashing  their  termination  order as illegal and arbitrary.  

4) The learned single Judge, while allowing the  writ  petition,  took  exception  to  lack  of  reasoning in the show cause notice and orders  of  termination,  however,  as  the  respondents  attempted  to  justify  the  termination  on  the  ground that the height of the writ petitioners  was not in accordance with the Police Order  No.  202  of  1988,  the  learned  Single  Judge  

2

thought it fit to direct the Deputy Inspector  General  of  Police  (Headquarters),  Patna  [hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  DIG  of  police”], to measure the height of the writ  petitioners (including the appellant) and file  a report of the same before the Court.  

5) Pursuant to the direction so issued, the DIG  of  police  measured  the  height  of  the  writ  petitioners  (including  the  appellant)  and  submitted his report before the High Court. In  the  report,  the  appellant’s  height  was  indicated as only 164 cm, falling short of 165  cm. as required by the Police Order No.202 of  1988.

6) Taking  into  consideration  the  report  of  the  DIG of Police, the High Court disposed of the  writ petition by its order dated 28.02.1997,  ordering  the  reinstatement  of  those  who  met  the  criterion  of  height,  while  stating  that  appropriate orders may be passed in the case  of  those  persons  who  did  not  have  the  requisite height. In view of the orders passed  by the High Court, the Inspector General of  

3

Police  had  issued  the  order  dated  6.3.1997  terminating the services of the appellant as a  constable in the police force.

7) Aggrieved  by  the  order  of  termination  so  passed,  the  appellant  was  constrained  to  approach the writ court once again in C.W.J.C.  No.  1314  of  2000.  The  appellant  primarily  contended  and  asserted  that  his  height  was  165.5 cm and not 164 cm as recorded in the  report submitted by the DIG of police. Since  there  was  a  factual  assertion  made  by  the  appellant and disputed by the DIG of Police,  the  learned  Single  Judge,  in  the  ends  of  justice, had appointed the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief  Medical  Officer,  Patna  [hereinafter  referred  to  as  “Chief  Medical  Officer”]  to  measure the height of the appellant and submit  his report before the Court.  

8) The Chief Medical Officer, in his report, had  reported the height of the appellant as 166  cm.  Taking  into  consideration  the  report  so  filed  and  the  fact  that  the  appellant  was  appointed against a regular vacancy and that  

4

there was no better contender for the post at  the time of the appellant’s appointment, the  learned Single Judge observed that the DIG of  police had malafidely represented the height  of  the  appellant  to  be  164  cm.  As  a  consequence,  the  writ  petition  came  to  be  allowed and the respondents were directed to  continue  the  services  of  the  appellant  and  also to pay the back-wages from the date of  termination of his service till the date he is  reinstated into service.

9) The  order  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  was  carried in appeal before the Division Bench of  the High Court in L.P.A. No. 583/2006 and the  same  came  to  be  allowed  as  observed  by  us  earlier. It is this order which is called in  question in this appeal.

10) We have heard learned counsel for the parties  to the lis.

11) At the outset, we record that that we do not  intend to comment on the performance of the  

5

DIG of Police while measuring the height of  the appellant, since this aspect of the matter  has been taken note of by the learned Single  Judge  while  disposing  of  the  second  Writ  Petition.

12) In  our  view,  the  writ  court  had  rightly  directed the Chief Medical Officer to measure  the height of the appellant in view of the  factual dispute between the statement of the  appellant and the DIG of police and thereafter  drawing support from the report of the Chief  Medical Officer had directed the respondents  to  continue  the  services  of  the  appellant  since  he  satisfies  all  the  guidelines/  parameters  prescribed  in  the  Police  Order  No.202 of 1988.  The Police Order No.202 of  1988  speaks  of  certain  qualifications  that  requires to be fulfilled by a candidate before  being selected and appointed to the post of  constable. One such qualification is that the  candidate must possess at least 165 cm height.  The height of the appellant has been found to  be 166 cm by the Chief Medical Officer, which  was accepted by the learned Single Judge and  this factual aspect should have been accepted  

6

by the Division Bench, in the Letters Patent  Appeal filed before it before taking exception  to the approach of the learned Single Judge  and before setting aside the finding of fact  recorded  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  with  regard to the height of appellant. In view of  the above narration, since the appellant has  the  requisite  height  and  since  he  satisfies  all the other conditions, in our opinion, the  respondents were not justified in terminating  the  services  of  the  appellant  in  the  year  1997.   Therefore,  we  cannot  sustain  the  impugned judgment.   

13) Now  the  only  question  that  remains  to  be  considered is, while directing the appellant  to  be  reinstated  in  service  whether  the  respondents  should  be  directed  to  pay  back  wages also from the date of termination of the  appellant’s  service  till  his  reinstatement.  Shri. Navin Prakash, learned counsel appearing  for the appellant submits that in the facts  and circumstances of the case and since the  appellant  is  getting  back  his  means  of  livelihood  he  would  not  press  for  the  back  wages if he is reinstated into service. In our  

7

opinion, the suggestion so made by Shri. Navin  Prakash appears to be reasonable and if it is  accepted it would not prejudice the case of  the respondents in any manner whatsoever.

14) In view of the peculiar facts and circumstance  of this case, we allow this appeal, set aside  the judgment and order passed by the Division  Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna  in  LPA  No.583/2006  dated  30.04.2010.  We  further  direct  the  respondents  to  reinstate  the  appellant  into  service  as  a  constable  within  three  month's  time  from  the  date  of  receipt of a copy of this order. We make it  clear that the appellant will not be entitled  to back-wages from the date of the termination  of  his  service  till  his  reinstatement  into  service. However, the period between the date  of termination and the date of reinstatement  will  be  considered  for  the  purpose  of  computing the qualifying service for payment  of the pensionary benefits only.   

15) We clarify that this order is passed by us  only in the facts and circumstances of this  

8

case and not to be read as declaration of the  law by us. The question of law canvassed by  Shri.  Manish  Kumar,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent-State is left open.  

9

16) With  this  observation  and  direction,  this  appeal is disposed of. No costs.

...................J. (H.L. DATTU)

...................J.    (ANIL R. DAVE)

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 16, 2012.   

1