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

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  

2

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  

3

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  

4

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  

5

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.   

6

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.     

7