Continued misconduct

Continued misconduct of police official resulted in him being awarded minor/major punishments during his career/service, and ultimately on basis of such record he was dismissed from service

Contention of dismissed police official that he had already been penalized departmentally for acts of misconduct during his service, and that he could not be dismissed from service and punished again on the basis of such adverse entries recorded in his service record in view of Art. 13 of the Constitution

Validity

Concept of Art. 13(a) of the Constitution was completely distinct from the wisdom behind R. 16.2 of the Police Rules, 1934

Wisdom behind Art. 13(a) of the Constitution was to provide protection to a person who was tried and convicted from being vexed again in the same offence, whereas, concept of R. 16.2 of the Police Rules, 1934 was completely different whereby the penalty of dismissal from service of a police officer was awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service

Such penalty had further been qualified by the language of Rule 16.2 to the length of service

In terms of R. 16.2 cumulative effect of the penalties which the competent authority recorded in the service record of the police officers, could be examined to measure whether such police officer was fit to continue in the police service

Rule 16.2 of the Police Rules, 1934 was independent and had been introduced to ensure discipline within the police service and also to keep a strict check on the conduct of the police officer; it enabled a constant watchful-eye on the police officer by examining their dossier at any point of time and if the competent authority reached the conclusion that the police officer had indulged in acts of misconduct, which proved incorrigibility and rendered him completely unfit for service, the competent Authority could award the penalty of dismissal from service

Rule 16.2 of the Police Rules, 1934 was not violative of Art.13(a) of the Constitution.