Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the State of Bihar against a judgment of the Patna High Court which had quashed an order of the Director General of Police dated 10.9.1993 dismissing respondent Sheo Narayan Singh, a constable in Bihar Military Police, for procuring appointment by forging military service records and suppressing a court martial conviction. The dispute concerned the scope of Rules 853 and 853-A of the Bihar Police Manual, particularly whether the Director General could suo motu revise an order exonerating a delinquent officer. Sheo Narayan Singh was appointed constable in 1984. It was alleged that he manipulated military service records, suppressed that he had been sentenced to four months' civil imprisonment by a court martial and dismissed from military service, and forged service records to secure the job. Disciplinary proceedings led to his dismissal. On appeal, the Deputy Inspector General on 7.2.1991 set aside the dismissal. The Director General of Police on 3.6.1992 exercised power under Rule 853-A(a) and restored the dismissal. Sheo Narayan Singh challenged this before the High Court, which quashed the Director General's order for violation of natural justice and directed a fresh order after hearing. The Director General then issued a memo dated 3.5.1993 seeking explanation. The respondent contended that the Additional Director General had no right to ask for explanation and that no de novo proceedings could be initiated after the High Court had quashed the charges. The Director General rejected these contentions, noting that the High Court had not quashed the charge-sheet but only directed a fresh order after hearing. A fresh dismissal order was passed on 10.9.1993, recording verification from army authorities that confirmed court martial conviction and dismissal. In the second writ petition, the High Court held that Rule 853 did not permit a departmental memorial or revision against exoneration, only an aggrieved officer could prefer a memorial against punishment, and Rule 853-A suo motu powers did not cover exoneration orders. The High Court set aside the order dated 10.9.1993. The State of Bihar argued that Rule 853-A is wide and independent, not limited by Rule 853, and the power can be exercised regardless of whether the original order imposed punishment or exonerated. The respondent, absent in the Supreme Court, had earlier contended that no provision allowed the department to challenge exoneration. The Court reproduced Rules 853 and 853-A. Rule 853 deals with memorials and revision by officers against orders of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. Rule 853-A(a) empowers the Inspector General to call for the file in any case even when no appeal lies and pass such order as he may deem fit. Sub-rule (b) similarly empowers the State Government. Sub-rule (c) covers enhancement of punishment when an appeal is filed. The Court held that Rule 853-A is not restricted by Rule 853. It enables the Inspector General to act suo motu even where no appeal lies. The wide power includes revising an order exonerating an officer and imposing punishment if warranted. The Court observed that the scope and purpose of Rules 853 and 853-A are quite different; Rule 853 deals with memorials and revision by an aggrieved party, while Rule 853-A is a suo motu power. The High Court was clearly in error in reading into Rule 853-A the requirements of Rule 853. The Court therefore allowed the appeal, restored the order of the Director General of Police dated 10.9.1993, and made no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Scope of Rule 853 Bihar Police Manual - Rule 853 provides for memorials and revision only by officers against whom final order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank has been passed; it does not confer any right on department to challenge exoneration - High Court incorrectly relied on Rule 853 to hold that no revision lay against exoneration; Held that Rule 853 is confined to aggrieved officers and not applicable to department (Pages 3-4). B) Service Law - Revisional Powers - Scope of Rule 853-A Bihar Police Manual - Rule 853-A is independent of Rule 853 and confers suo motu power on Inspector General to call for file in any case even when no appeal lies and pass such order as he deems fit - This power extends to revising an order exonerating an officer and imposing punishment if warranted - Director General could exercise this power to dismiss constable after finding forged military service records - Held that High Court erred in reading Rule 853 limitations into Rule 853-A (Pages 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 853-A of Bihar Police Manual empowers Inspector General/Director General to suo motu revise an order exonerating a police officer, or is limited to orders imposing punishment under Rule 853
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order of Director General of Police dated 10.9.1993 restored; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Rule 853-A confers suo motu power on Inspector General to review any disciplinary order including exoneration
- Rule 853 deals with memorials and revision only against punishment orders
- Rules 853 and 853-A are independent
- High Court erred in importing limitations of Rule 853 into Rule 853-A
- Director General's power includes imposing punishment when delinquent wrongly exonerated
