NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  3131  OF 2011  (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.28448 of 2008)

Mahendra Prasad Singh @ Mahendra Singh .....Appellant.

        Versus

State of Bihar & Ors.         …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 26th  

June, 2008 delivered in LPA No.978 of 2007 by the High Court  

of  Judicature  at  Patna,  this  appeal  has  been  filed  by  the  

original petitioner-appellant herein.

1

3. The  appellant  was  appointed  as  a  constable  and  while  

undergoing training at Commandant Training Centre, B.M.P.-

1, Ranchi  he was placed under suspension.   During the period  

of  suspension  he  had  absconded  from  the  Training  Centre,  

Ranchi  without  giving  any  intimation  to  any  authority.  

Thereafter, he had returned to Palamu Headquarters and had  

reported his arrival.   Thus, he had unauthorizedly remained  

absent for 105 days.  In view of his above stated misconduct,  

the departmental inquiry had been conducted and as a result  

of inquiry proceeding, by an order dated 14th September, 1977,  

his services had been brought to an end by way of punishment.

4. Being  aggrieved  by  the  order  of  punishment,  the  

appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General  

of Police, S.C.R., Ranchi, who did not find any substance in the  

appeal and, therefore, dismissed the same.

2

5. Thereafter,  the  appellant  made a  representation  to  the  

Director  General  &  Inspector  General  of  Police,  Bihar  at  

Patna for  his  reinstatement  on 7th January,  1989.   The  said  

representation was also turned down by the Director General  

& Inspector  General  of  Police,  Bihar.   It  appears  from the  

order dated 28th July, 1989, passed by the Director General &  

Inspector General of Police, Bihar, that the appellant had also  

made a representation earlier but the said representation had  

been rejected.   

6. The  appellant  was  not  aggrieved  by  the  order  of  

punishment but he was aggrieved because no pension was paid  

to  him.   Therefore,  after  about  10  years,  he  filed  C.W.J.C.  

No.1971/2000 in the High Court of Judicature at Patna.  In the  

said petition a direction was given to the concerned authorities  

to look into the grievance of the petitioner.  By giving  such  

direction, the petition was disposed of on 29th February, 2000.

3

7. In pursuance of the aforestated order passed by the High  

Court,  the  concerned  authorities  considered  the  case  of  the  

appellant and came to the conclusion that he was not entitled  

to any pension as he was removed from service.   Final decision  

was communicated to the appellant by the Superintendent of  

Police, Palamu on 10.6.2001.

8. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 10th June, 2001, the  

appellant filed C.W.J.C. No.8260 of 2002.  After hearing the  

concerned  parties,  the  said  petition  was  rejected  on  28th  

September, 2007.   

9. Being aggrieved by the Order rejecting the petition, the  

appellant filed L.P.A. No.978 of 2007 which was also dismissed  

on  26th June,  2008  and,  therefore,  the  appellant  filed  the  

present  appeal  wherein  the  order  dated  26th June,  2007  

dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal has been challenged.  

4

10. Leaned senior counsel Mr. Nagendra Rai appearing for  

the appellant has very fairly submitted that the appellant was  

not aggrieved by the order whereby his service was terminated  

but he was aggrieved as he was not being paid pension.  He  

submitted that according to Rule 46 of Bihar Pension Rules,  

1950  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘the  Rules’),  unless  an  

employee  has  been  dismissed  or  removed  from  service  for  

misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, the employee would get  

pension upon termination of his service.  He further submitted  

that  the  appellant  had  neither  been  dismissed  nor  been  

removed but he had been discharged from service by the order  

dated 14th September, 1977 and, therefore, the appellant was  

entitled to get pension.  So as to substantiate his case, he relied  

upon  the  following  judgments:  (1)  Raghunandan  Mishra v.  

State of Bihar and others, 1985 BLJ 721; (2) Fagoo Paswan v.  

The  State  of  Bihar  & ors.,  1999(1)  PLJR210  and  (3)  Vijoy  

Narain Jha v. The State of Bihar & others,  2000(1) BLJ 452.

5

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the  

State supported the orders passed by the authorities below and  

the High Court and submitted that the appellant is not entitled  

to get any pension for the reason that he had been dismissed  

from service by virtue of the order dated 14th September, 1977.  

He very fairly submitted that a mistake had been committed by  

the  Superintendent  of  Police  who  had  passed  the  order  

terminating  the  service  while  using  the  word  ‘discharge’  

instead of ‘dismiss’.  He took us through the said order which  

gives  details  about  the  circumstances  in  which  the  

departmental  proceedings  had  been  initiated  against  the  

appellant  and  upon  finding  him  guilty,  the  order  of  

punishment had been passed by the Superintendent of Police.  

He submitted that looking to the tenor of the said order, it is  

clear  that  the  Superintendent  of  Police,  Palamu,  considered  

seriousness of the misconduct of the appellant and he observed  

in the order that looking to the misconduct, the appellant must  

be  dismissed  from  the  service  but  somehow  in  the  last  

6

paragraph, instead of word ‘dismissed’ the word ‘discharged’  

was used.  The learned counsel further submitted that, in fact,  

there is no punishment of discharge in the police manual.  He  

referred to the relevant provisions of the Bihar Police Manual,  

which deals with the punishments which can be inflicted upon  

police  personnel,  and  he  also  submitted  that  there  is  no  

punishment of ‘discharge from service’.

12. He further submitted that even according to Rule 46 of  

the  Rules,  if  anyone  has  been  dismissed  or  removed  from  

service because of any misconduct,  the said employee would  

not be entitled to get any pension.  He further  submitted that  

upon perusal of the order imposing punishment, it was clear  

that the appellant was dismissed from service, though the term  

‘discharge’ was used in the impugned order.  He, therefore,  

submitted that the appeal be dismissed as the appellant is not  

entitled to pension.

7

13. We heard learned counsel  at  length.   It  is  pertinent  to  

note that though the order of punishment was passed on 14th  

September, 1977, which had been confirmed on 4th April, 1978,  

by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, S.C.R., Ranchi,  the  

appellant  filed  a  petition making a  grievance  regarding non  

payment  of  pension in  2000.   As  the  appellant  had made a  

prayer  for  pension,  the  High  Court  gave  a  direction  for  

considering the appellant’s case for payment of pension.  The  

concerned  authorities  considered  the  appellant’s  case  and  

looking to the provisions of the Rules, came to the conclusion  

that the appellant was not liable to get any pension and his  

request for pension was rejected.  Thereafter another petition  

was  filed  by  the  appellant,  which  was  also  rejected  and,  

therefore,  he filed an L.P.A.,  which was also dismissed and,  

therefore,  the present appeal was filed.

14. In our opinion, the authorities and the High Court were  

right  in  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  as  the  appellant  was  

8

removed from service by way of dismissal on account of his  

misconduct, the appellant was not entitled to get any pension  

as per Rule 46 of the Rules.

15. It is pertinent to note that according to the provisions of  

Rule 107 of the Rules, there can be four types of pensions as  

narrated  in  the  said  Rule  –  i)  Compensation  pensions  (ii)  

Invalid  pensions  (iii)  Superannuation  pensions  and  (iv)  

Retiring pensions.  The appellant could not make out any case  

for entitlement of any of the pensions referred to hereinabove.  

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also could not  

point out any provision enabling the appellant to get pension.

16. In view of the fact that the service of the appellant had  

been  terminated  by  way  of  punishment  on  account  of  his  

misconduct, in our opinion, the High Court rightly dismissed  

the  appeal  filed  by  the  appellant.  We  agree  with  the  view  

expressed by the High Court.

9

17. Upon examining the order of punishment,  we find that  

the  Superintendent  of  Police,  Palamu,  who  had  passed  the  

order  of  punishment  had  discussed  the  gravity  of  the  

misconduct of the appellant and ultimately he passed the order  

of punishment dated 14th September, 1977, whereby service of  

the appellant was terminated.  Though in the said order the  

Superintendent  of  Police,  Palamu  inflicted  punishment  of  

‘discharge’  from  service,  as  stated  hereinabove,  there  is  no  

punishment  like  ‘discharge’  from  service.   We  are  in  

agreement with the submission made on behalf of the learned  

counsel  appearing  for  the  Authorities  that  a  mistake  was  

committed by the Superintendent of Police by stating that the  

appellant was discharged from service.   In fact,  he ought to  

have stated that the appellant was dismissed from service.  An  

order is  to be read in  entirety  and upon such reading,   the  

intention behind passing of the order is to be understood.  The  

order is  not  to be read by taking notice of  only one or two  

10

words of the order.  If  one reads the present order in entirety,  

there could be  no two opinions that it is an order of removal  

from service by way of dismissal.  Upon reading the said order  

of punishment, we are also of the view that the Superintendent  

of  Police  had duly  considered the gravity  of  the  misconduct  

and also mentioned in the body of the order that the appellant  

deserved  dismissal  but  in  the  final  operative  portion  of  the  

order some mistake was committed.  Such a mistake would not  

enable the appellant to get pension which otherwise he was not  

entitled to.  Even the Hindi word used by the Superintendent  

of Police “Seva Samapta”  if  read in the context of the facts  

would mean that on account of the misconduct of the appellant  

he was dismissed from service  as  there  is  no punishment of  

‘discharge’ from service in the Bihar Police Manual.

18. In our opinion, provisions of Rule 46 of the Rules would  

not  help  the  appellant  especially  because  his  service  was  

terminated due to his misconduct.  It is an admitted fact that  

11

due to his misconduct,  his service was terminated or he was  

removed from service and, therefore, also, in our opinion, the  

appellant would not be entitled to any pension.

19. For the aforestated reasons, we do not see any reason to  

interfere with the just and proper order passed by the High  

Court.  Therefore, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to  

costs.

………………................................J.                                                                 (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

                          ……...........................................J.                                                                        (ANIL R. DAVE) New Delhi April  8, 2011

12