Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Police Officer for Fabricating Evidence

The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 336 of 1969, setting aside the High Court's judgment that declared the dismissal of the respondent as illegal and wrongful. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 844 of 1966 was dismissed, upholding the dismissal of the respondent from the Punjab Police Force for fabricating false evidence during a criminal case investigation. The appellant was directed to bear the costs of the respondent in both appeals in the Supreme Court.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dismissal of a Head Constable from the Punjab Police Force for fabricating false evidence during a criminal case investigation.
2. Challenge to the dismissal order through writ petition and subsequent appeals.
3. Institution of a civil suit for a declaration that the dismissal was violative of Article 311 of the Constitution.
4. Determination of whether the principle of res judicata could be waived in the case.

Issue 1: The respondent, a Head Constable in the Punjab Police Force, was dismissed for fabricating false evidence during a criminal case investigation. An enquiry found him guilty, leading to his dismissal. Appeals up to the Inspector General level were unsuccessful, resulting in the respondent's dismissal.

Issue 2: The respondent challenged his dismissal through a writ petition in the Punjab High Court, which was dismissed. Appeals under the Letters Patent were also unsuccessful. The Division Bench found that the respondent had been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause as required by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The respondent's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused.

Issue 3: Subsequently, the respondent filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the dismissal was violative of Article 311 of the Constitution. The trial court and the Additional District Judge dismissed the suit. However, a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal, declaring the dismissal illegal and wrongful.

Issue 4: The appellant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which was refused. A petition for special leave was granted against the High Court's order. The Supreme Court considered whether the principle of res judicata could be waived in the case. The Court found that the necessary facts regarding the previous writ petition were present, and the judgment in the writ petition was binding on the parties. The Court dismissed the petition for special leave against the judgment in the writ petition.

Final Decision: Civil Appeal No. 336 of 1969 was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and dismissing the respondent's suit. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 844 of 1966 was dismissed. The appellant was directed to bear the costs of the respondent in both appeals in the Supreme Court.

---