Petition crl Nos 353 and 491 of 1988
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
AS Pundir for the Petitioners
PG NO 1025 VC Mahajan Mrs A Katiyar Dalveer Bhandari and Ms Subhashini for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K JAGANNATHA SHETTY J
These two petitions under Art of the Constitution are for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus for the release of Ram Ratan and Hawa Singh who have been detained under sec
32 of the of 1980
Ram Ratan was a Head Constable and Hawa Singh was a Constable in the Security Unit of Delhi Police
While on duty they were together said to have committed a cognizable Offence under Sec
39234 of IPC along with a member of the public
Immediately thereafter they were arrests and placed on suspension
The Court
however released them on bail While the case was under investigation the Commissioner of Police Delhi Mr Vijay Karan thought fit the detam them under the 
Accordingly
he made them orders which are impugned herein
Subsequently
they have been summarily dismissed from service under Article 3 11iib of the Constitution
The principal contention urged for the petitioners relates to the oft repeated question that the ground of detention has no nexus to the public order  but purely a matter for law and order
In order to appreciate the contention urged in this regard it will be necessary to have regard to the orders of detention
The orders passed against the two detenu are on different datesbut are similar in terms and it may be sufficient if we refer to one of the orders
The ground of detention in each case relates to one incident which has been stated as follows That on 22788 one Shri Jasbil Singh So Shri Inder Singh Ro 58693 Ambala City Haryana reported that on 21788 he purchased some TV parts from Lajpat Rai Market
After purchase he loaded the TV parts on rickshaw and asked the rickshaw puller Shanker So Shri Vasudev Ro Old Lajpat Rai Market
Near Hanuman Mandir who was known to him to take the parts to Patiala Transport near Libra Service Station GTK Road
He himself went alone to Patiala Transport and waited for the rickshaw puller
At about 1100 pm
the rickshaw puller informed him that two police PG NO 1026 personnel namely HC Ram Ratan and Constable Hawa Singh who were previously posted in PS Kotwali along with a member of the public Prabhu Dayal who he knew has stopped his rickshaw near B block Industrial Area GTK Road
Head Constable Ram Ratan caught him and started beating him and asked for a receipt for the goods
Constable Hawa Singh and Prabhu Dayal removed the parts and loaded in a TSR and went away
 It was also stated that those TV parts were recovered from the detenu and the case was registered under sec
39234 IPC in which the investigation was progressing
There then it was said From the above criminal activity of Shri Ram Ratan it is clear that he being a Police Officer and bound to provide security and safety to the public has himself committed a heinous offence which has created a sense of insecurity in the minds of public at large and is pre judicial to the maintenance of public order
Keeping in view the above criminal activity of the said Head Constable Ram Ratan it has been felt necessary to detain him us 32 of the National Security Act 1981 so that his such activity which is prejudicial to the maintenance ot public order could be stopped
xxx xxxxxx xxx Sd Vijay Karan COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Delhi As is obvious from the order the Commissioner was satisfied with the need to detain the person firstly because the person being a police officer was bound to provide security and safety to the public and secondly the offence committed was heinous which has created a sense of insecurity in the minds of the public at large
The same was highlighted before us by Shri Mahajan learned counsel for the respondents justifying the detention orders
The Counsel argued that though the incident in question was a simple case of robbery since it was PG NO 1027 committed by persons belonging to the disciplined police force it would certainly disturb the public safety in the life of the community with a sense of Insecurity in their minds
It is true that the detenu belonged to the police force in the national capital
Public look for the police for safety
Society regards them as their guardian for its protection
Society needs a properly trained and well disciplined police force whom it can trust in all respects
They are the real frontline of our defence against violence
They have to maintain law and order
They have to safeguard our freedoms and liberty
They have to prevent crime and when crime is committed they have to detect it and bring the accused to justice
They must be available at all hours
They are always expected to act and indeed must act properly
it is reprehensible if they themselves indulge in criminal activities
We are not as we cannot be unmindful of the danger to liberties of people when guardians of law and order themselves indulge in undesirable acts
But the law of preventive detention is not different to police personnel
It is the same law that we apply to police as well as to public
We cannot therefore apply a different standard in respect of acts individually committed by any police officer
The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority with respect to the person sought to be detained should be based only on the nature of the activities disclosed by the grounds of detention
The grounds of detention must have nexus with the purpose for which the detention is made
The question in this case is whether the crime in question has any impact on public order as such
Courts have strived to give to this concept a narrower construction than what the literal words Suggest
In the Superintendent Central Prison Fatehgarh vs Ram Manohar Lohia Subba Rao J as he then was observed at 833 But in lndia under article 192 this wide concept of public order is split up under different heads
It enables the imposition of reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression in the interests of the security of the State friendly relations will foreign States public order decency or morality
or in relation to contempt of court defamation or incitement to an offence
All the grounds mentioned therein can be PG NO 1028 brought under the general head public order in its most comprehensive sense
But the juxtaposition of the different grounds indicates that though sometimes they tend to overlap they must be ordinarily intended to exclude each other
Public order is therefore something which is demarcated from the others
In that limited sense particularly in view of the history of the amendment it can be postulated that public order is synonymous with public peace safety and tranquility
 The impact on public order and law and order depends upon the nature of the act the place where it is committed and motive force behind it
If the act is confined to an individual without directly or indirectly affecting the tempo of the life of the community it may be a matter of law and order only
But where the gravity of the act is otherwise and likely to endanger the public tranquility it may fall within the orbit of the public order
This is precisely the distinguishing feature between the two concepts
Sometimes as observed by Venkatachaliah J in Ayya Alias Ayub vs The State of UP  Anr
Judgment today 1988 Vol
4 p 489 at 496 what might be an otherwise simple law and order situation might assume the gravity and mischief of a public order problem by reason alone of the manner or circumstances in which or the place at which it is carried out
Necessarily much depends upon the nature of the act the place where it is committed and the sinister significance attached to it
As for example dare devil repeated criminal acts
open shoot out throwing bomb at public places
committing serious offences in public transept armed persons going on plundering public properties of terrorising people may create a sense of insecurity in the public mind and may have an impact on public order
Even certain murder committed by persons in lonely places with the definite object of promoting the cause of the party to which they belong may also affect the maintenance of public order 
In Abdul Aziz vs The Dist
Magistrate Burdwan  Ors  this Court has stated so
There two grounds were furnished to the detenu in justification of the order of detention
It was stated firstly that the petitioner and his associates were members of an extremist party CPI ML that on 16th August 1971 they armed themselves with lethal weapons like PG NO 1029 firearms choppers and daggers with a view to promoting the cause of their party that they raided the house of one Durgapada Rudra and murdered him and that the aforesaid incidents created a general sense of insecurity as result of which the residents of the locality could not follow their normal avocations for a considerable period
The second ground of detention is that on 22nd May 1971 the petitioner and his associates raided the house of Smt
Kshetromoni Choudhury and murdered one Umapada Mallick who was staring in that house
This incident is also stated to have created a general sense of insecurity amongst the residents of the locality
 Repelling the connection in that case that the two incidents referred to above are but simple cases of murder germane to law and order but could have no impact on public order Chandrachud J as he then vas said at p 648 A short answer to this contention is that the murders are stated to have been committed by the petitioner and his associates with the definite object of promoting the cause of the party to which they belonged
These therefore are not stray or simple cases of murder as contended by the learned counsel
Such incidents have serious repercussions not merely on law and order but On public order
In Mohd Dhana Ali khan vs State of West Bengal this Court had an occasion to consider the detention of a person under the maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971 regarding a single instance of theft in a running train at night
The acts attributed to the detenu in that case were that on 381973
between 2110 and 2120 hrs
 the detenu and his associate being armed with daggers boarded a 3rd class compartment of SL 257 UP train of E Railway Sealdah Division at Gocharan Railway Station
They put the passengers of the compartment to fear of death and snatched away a wrist watch and a gold necklace from one Nirmal Chatterjee and his wife in between Gocharan and Surajpur Railway Stations
The they decamped with booty from the running train at Suryapur Railway Station
It was contended in that case that the said single incident referred to have not even casual connection with the disturbance of public order
Fazal Ali
while rejecting that contention said at 126
From a perusal of this we are unable to accept the PG NO 1030 contention of the petitioner that this ground has no nexus with the disturbance of public order
It is true that the ground contains a single incident of theft of valuable property from some passengers travelling in a running train and may amount to robbery
But that does not by itself take the case out of the purview of the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act
There are two pertinent facts which emerge from the grounds which must be noted
In the first place the allegation is that the petitioner had snatched away a wrist watch and a gold necklace after putting the passengers of the compartment to fear of death
Secondly the theft had taken place at night in a running train in a third class compartment and the effect of it would be to deter peaceful citizens from travelling in trains at night and this would undoubtedly disturb the even tempo of the life of the community
 We have carefully examined the act complained of in the present case in the light of the principles stated above
It is an isolated criminal case with no sinister significance attached to it
The offence was committed by two misguided police men under the cover of darkness with the assistance of a member of the public
It was certainly suicidal to those two police personnel
But it seems to have no connection whatsoever to disturb the public order having regard to the circumstances of the case
The last contention urged for the petitioners that the detention would be illegal in view of dismissal of detenu from service is really without merit
The subsequent order of dismissal is not germane to of examine the validity of the detention
In the result the rule is made absolute
The orders of detention impugned in these cases are quashed
The detenu Ram Ratan and Hawa Singh be set at liberty forthwith
MLA Petitions allowed


Summary:
The Gwalior and Northern India Transport Company GNIT Company was operating transport services in and around Delhi
It was taken over on May 14 1948 by the Government of India Ministry of Transport and named as Delhi Transport Service
The services of all employees of the IT company were taken over by the Government of India but they continued to be governed by the rules in force before the take over
Subsequently it was taken over by the Delhi Municipal Corporation and later on by the Delhi Transport Undertaking and came to be known as Delhi Transport Corporation
All employees of GNIT Company employed before 281046 and were in continuous service at the time it was taken over by the Government of India were treated as protected employees as per clause 7 of the take over agreement
Prior to the take over they were governed by the Gwalior State Civil Service Rules which stipulate the age of retirement at 60
Option however was there for the employee to seek voluntary retirement at 55 years and for the Government to compulsorily retire an employee at 55
The Delhi Transport Corporation retired the petitioners on the ground that they attained the age of superannuation at 58 years
It was challenged in a writ petition before the Delhi High Court and the petitioners contended that option was there both for the Corporation as also the employees to retire at 55 but superannuation could be only on reaching 60 and not at 58 as claimed by the Corporation
The Delhi High Court rejected the petition
Against this the petitioners have come to this Court by way of a special leave petition
A writ petition has also been filed claiming the same relief
Allowing the special leave petition as also the writ petition this Court PG NO 1003 PG NO 1004 HELD The persons who were originally in the employment of GNIT Company and were employed prior to October 28 l946 and continued in service till May 14 l948 and onwards will have the right to remain in service upto 60 years unless the option to retire was exercised by the person or the Corporation at 55 years
The argument that the age of 55 years at which an employee could be asked to retire has been raised by the Corporation to 58 years and if an employee has been retired at 58 it was not prejudicial to him since he could have been retired in his erstwhile Company only at 55 has little merit in it
If the Delhi Transport Corporation had exercised its right to retire the petitioners on attaining the age of 58 years the argument would have been tenable
But that was not done by the Corporation
The Corporation retired the petitioners on the ground that they attained the age of superannuation at 58 years
That meant the Corporation was under the wrong impression that the petitioners had no right to continue beyond the age of 58 years
1008C D 1007E G 1008C