Mahendra Prasad Singh @ Mahendra Singh vs State Of Bihar & Ors

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.

2 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.

3 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.

4 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.

5 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.

6 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

7

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.

8 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

9

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.

10 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

11

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

12

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