IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10569 of 2009 Parmeshwar Singh . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3. 11.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police is aggrieved by the order dated 7.7.2007 visiting him with the punishment for stoppage of one increment only not to have any effect on his future pay and that nothing beyond subsistence allowance shall be payable for the period of suspension and that the period of suspension shall be adjusted against earned leave. His appeal against the same has also been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations themselves are that the petitioner was on Mobile patrol duty on a Police Gypsy. If he queried about the identity of a person in a vehicle, and the person happened to be a V.I.P. that shall not amount to dereliction in duty or abuse of powers amounting to misconduct only because it may have caused annoyance to the V.I.P. If it were to be so, no police officer would like to risk his job apprehensive of who may be sitting in the vehicle for the fear of treading on the wrong toes. The 2 procedure prescribed for imposing minor punishment under Rule 19 of the Bihar CCS Rule has not been followed. Counsel for the State submitted that proper proceedings have been held and no procedural irregularity causing prejudice has been urged. If the petitioner was on mobile petrol duty it was his duty and jurisdiction to make query about the occupant of any vehicle. The failure to do so would have amounted to dereliction in duty. Sensitivity of the aggrieved cannot be a ground to allege misconduct against the petitioner. The only allegation is for use of uncivil behaviour with the personnel accompanying the occupant of the car causing annoyance to the latter. To constitute misconduct, there must be a deliberate course of action, a single incident may suffice, with full knowledge of the attendant circumstances displaying a wanton behaviour contrary to service discipline. Service discipline mandated the petitioner otherwise. Any restriction on this power dependent on the occupant of the vehicle may have a deleterious effect on policing itself. This however cannot be construed as carte 3 blanche to the Police to act in the manner contrary to law on their whims and fancies. Naturally there shall have to be an inherent restraint for exercise of the power to the extent necessary in the facts and circumstance of the case. The connotation of the word “misconduct” has been considered in (1992) 4 SCC 54 (State of Punjab v. Ex-Constable Ram Singh) at Paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows:- “5. Misconduct has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition at page 999 thus: “A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, wilful in character, improper or wrong behavior, its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or carelessness.” Misconduct in office has been defined as: “Any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, wilful in character. Term embraces acts which the office holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act.” P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, Reprint Edition 1987 at page 821 defines „misconduct‟ thus: “The term misconduct implies a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment. Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral turpitude. The word misconduct is a relative term, and has 4 to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or statute which is being construed. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct. In usual parlance, misconduct means a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left, except what necessity may demand and carelessness, negligence and unskilfulness are transgressions of some established, but indefinite, rule of action, where some discretion is necessarily left to the actor. Misconduct is a violation of definite law; carelessness or abuse of discretion under an indefinite law. Misconduct is a forbidden act; carelessness, a forbidden quality of an act, and is necessarily indefinite. Misconduct in office may be defined as unlawful behaviour or neglect by a public officer, by which the rights of a party have been affected.” 6. Thus it could be seen that the word „misconduct‟ though not capable of precise definition, on reflection receives its connotation from the context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. It may involve moral turpitude, it must be improper or wrong behaviour; unlawful behaviour, wilful in character; forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere error of judgment, carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty; the act complained of bears forbidden quality or character. Its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, regard being had to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve. The police service is a disciplined service and it requires to maintain strict discipline. Laxity in this behalf erodes discipline in the service causing serious 5 effect in the maintenance of law and order.” The Court finds it difficult to sustain the order of punishment dated 7.7.2007 and the appellate order dated 30.8.2008, both are accordingly set side. The writ application is allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)