| Headnote |
A B c D E F CHANNABASAPPA BASAPPA HAPPALI v. STATE OF MYSORE October 16, 1970 [M. llu>AYATULLAH, C.J. AND A. N. RAY, J.] 645 DepartmentalProceedings-Admission of fGcts-Whether amounts to plea of guilt. Departmentalenquiry was startedagainst the appellant a police constable on thechargesthat he remainedabsent from duty without leave or permissionas hestayedbeyond the sanctionedleave and that he did go on fast contraryto thedisciplineof thepoliceforce,In reply to questions bythe Enquiring Officer,the appellantadmitted all the relevant facts. HELD : The admission of the factsby theappellantamounted to a plea Of guilty on the f~cts on whichthe appellantwas charged. The policeconstablehere was not on histrialfor a criminaloffence. It was adepartmentalenquiry, on facts, of whichdue notice was given to him. He admitted the facts.There was no distinctionbetween admission of facts and admission of guilt. When he admitted the facts,he wasguilty. The factsspeak for themselves. It was a clearcase of indisciplineand nothingless. If a policeofficerremainsabsent withoutleave and also resortsto fast as a demonst'rationagainst the action ·of the superiorofficer the indiscipline is fully established. [647 H, 648 CJ Jagdish PrDBad Saxena. v. State of MadhyaBharat (now Madhya Pra desh), A.I.R. 1961 S.C. !070, distinguished. Regina v. DurhamQuarter Sessions,Ex-parte Virgo, [1952]2 Q.B.D.I referredto. CML APPELLATE 1URISDICTION : Civil AppealNo. 485of 1967. .Appeal by specialleave from the judgmentand orderdated February25, 1966 of the MysoreHigh Courtin RegularSecond AppealNo. 84 of 1962. S. S. JavaH and A. G. Rat1f1Jparkhi, fortheappellant. G Shyamala Pappu and ~· P. Nayar, forthe respondent. TheJudgmentof theCourt was deliveredby Hidayatullah, C.J. The appellant files his appealby special leaveagainstthe judgmentof !helearned Single Judgeof the MysoreHigh Court,February25, 1966,by whichthe appealof H the State Governmentin a civilmatter was allowedand the order ofdismissalof theappellantwho is a former police. constable was confirmed.His cross-objection was dismissed. I4-cIA36SupCI/71 ·-- 646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1971] 2 S.C.R. The appellant was a policeconstableserving in the.Dharwar District.He joined the policeforce on August1, 1945in the former State ofBombay. On the States Reorganisation,he came underthe jurisdictionof the State of Mysoreand it was on Novem ber26,l 953that he was dismissedafter a departmentalenquiry againsthim on thefollowingfacts. The petitionerhad proceeded onleavefor a monthfrom January !, 1953. On January26, 1953,he appliedfor extensionof leavefor a month.A reply was received by himrefusingleave, but onlyon February21, 1953. Hemadea secondapplicationfor extensionof leaveon thesame date,but thisextensionof leave was notgranted. On February 26, 1 ~53, heundertooka 7 days' fast at a templesituatedthree miles from Dharwarand wrotelettersto hissuperiorofficers to which ive shallreferpresently.A charge was framedagainst him underthree headswhichwere that he wasguiltyof serious mis conductand indisciplinaryaction in thathe remainedabsent from dutywithoutleave or permissionfrom January 1, 1953,that he hadsentlettersto hissuperiorofficers intimatinghis intentionto goonfastwitheffectfrom February26. 1953 "for the upliftment ofthecountry etc." andthat h~ had sentcopiesof theselettersto severalnewspapersalso. The thirdcharge was that he didgo on faston February26, 1953and continuedit ti!! March 5, 1953 atthetemplecontraryto the. disciplineof thepoliceforce.He wasdulyservedwith thesechargesand wasalsoaskedto obtain suchcopiesfrom the record as he neededfor his defenceand to bringa friend to defendhim if heliked.When the enquiry com nenced, he. wasput a fewquestions by the enquiringofficer which maybe referredto ir. detail. Q. (I) Have you receiveda copyof thechargesheet ? A. Yes. Q. (2) Have you understoodtheCharges ? A. Yes. Q. (3) Do you acceptthe chargesframed against you ? A. Yes. Q. ( 4) Haveyou anythingto sayfor breakingthe discipline ofthePolice Force? A. I hadbeenon leavefor onemonth.I appliedto the Sub Inspectorfor the extensionof my leave by anothermonth.I thoughtthat my leave may be extended.Hence I didnotjoin dutyon 31-1-53.I was greatly worriedby theinjusticedone by thepoliceto thepoorpublicand witha viewto improvethe Police Forceand afterinformingthe concernedauthorities,I wenton c D· E G H A B c D F H C.B. HAP PALI v. MYSOllE (Hidayatul/ah, C.J.) 64 7 fast.I donot W,llnt anyhelpfromanybodyfer defending myself. I donotpropose to cross-examineany witnessthat may be exa mined.Nor do I propose.to examineany witnessof my side. I donotknowthe PoliceManualRules. I submittedthe petition inthe interest~ ofthegeneralpublic.I didnot go on fastin my self interest.I havedone s<>" in publicinterest. We are Jiving in a democraticcountry. So whatever is in theinterestof the gene ralpubliccannotrun counterto thedisciplineof thePoliceForce. Iprayfor properjustice on thebasisof my replyand the documents whichare against me. I donotdesireto say anything more". It will appearfrom this thathe didnot want to takeany more part in theenquirythan to havethe matteradjudgedon thebasis ofhisreplyand Uie documentswhich were againsthim, This is. what he had statedin thepenultimatesentence of hisownstatement andin theearlierpart, he hadunequivocallyadmitted the facts which had beenplacedin chargeagainsthim. His explanation wastwo-fold, namely thathe continued to absenthimselfbecause: hethoughtthat leavemighthave been extendedand secondlythat hisproceedingto goonfast was in theinterestof democracy and. thecountryas a wholeand alsoto improvethe policeforce. Thepleasof thepetitionerare quiteclear;in facthe admitted· all therelevantfacts on whichthe decisioncould be givenagainst himand thereforeit cannot be statedthat theenquiry was in breachof anyprincipleof naturaljustice.At an enquiryfacts haveto be provedand the person proceed¢ againstmust have an opP<>rtunity to crossexaminewitnessesand to give his own version orexplanationabout the evidenceon whichhe is chargedand to lead his defence.In thiscase,the factswere two fold,that he had stayed beyondthe sanctionedleave and thathe hadproceededon afast as a d.:monstration againstthe actionof theauthoritiesand alsofor whathe called the upliftmentof thecountryetc. These factswereundoubtedlyadmitted by him. His explanation was alsothereand it hadto betakeninto account.That explanation is obviouslyfutile, becausepersons in thepoliceforce must be clearaboutextensionof leave before. they absentthemselvesfrom duty.Indeedthis is true of everyone of the services,unless of course there are circumstancesin whicha person is unableto re joinservice,as forexamplewhen he is desperately ill or is other wise reasonablyprevented from attendingto his duties. This is not the casehere.The petitioner took uponhimselfthe decision as to whetherleave couldbe extendedor notandactedupon it. He did go on a fast. His laterexolanation was that he wenton a fastfor quitea differentreason.The enquiryOfficer had to go by the reasons given beforehim. On the wholethereforethe admis sion was one of guiltyin so far as the factson whichthe enquiry j)4S SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 2 S.C.R. was heldand the learned sin_gle Judgein theHighCourtwas, in our opinion,right in soholding. It wascontendedon thebasisof theruling reported in Regina v.DurhamQuarter SessionsEx-parteVirgo(1) that Oil the facts admittedin thepresentcase, a pleaof guiltyought not to be en tered upon the recordand a pleaof notguiltyenteredinstead. Under the English. Jaw, a pleaof guiltyhas to be unequivocaland thecourtmust ask the person.and if the pleaof guiltyis qualified theCourtmust not enter a pleaof guiltybut oneof notguilty. The policeconstablehere was not on bistrialfor a criminaloff ence. It was a depar~ntal enquiry, on factsof whichdue notice wasgivento him.He admittedthe facts.In fact his counsel arguedbefore us that he admittedthe factsbut not his guilt; We do not see anydistinctionbetween admissionof factsand admis sion of guilt.When he admittedthe facts,he was ~lty. The factsspeakfor themselves.. It was a clearcase of indisciplineand nothingless.' If a policeofficerremainsabsent withoutleave and alsoresorts to fast as a demonstrationagainst the actionof the superiorofficer the indiscipline is fullyestablished.The learned Single Judgein theHighCourt was right when he laiddownthat thepleaamountedto a pleaof guiltyon thefactson whichtho petitioner was chargedand we arein fullagreementwith the oi,. servationsof the learned.Single Judge. The casereally is not oneof anymerit;the plea r::ised before us wasin ad misi?ricordiam. We wereaskedto take the viewthat thisman was actuatedby his own feelingthat leavewould be ex tendedand further that _his goingon fast was notfor thepurpose of theadministrationbut for. son:ie other purpose.Even if we wereto takethe admissionas a wholewith all its qualifications, we arequite clear that he admittedthe factsnecessary to establish thechargeagainsthim. Thelearnedcounselfor theappellantfurther relied upon a rulingof thisCourtin JagdishPrasad Saxena v. The State of Madhyµ Bharat [now MadhyaPradesh (2) ].That cas• is absolutely |
