Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the dismissal of a foot constable from the Delhi Police by an order dated 25th October 1960, passed by the Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Delhi. The constable, Ram Kishan, filed a civil suit in the court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi, seeking a declaration that the dismissal was void and a decree for Rs. 1,151/-. He challenged the order on two principal grounds: first, that the Superintendent of Police (Traffic) was not a District Superintendent of Police and therefore lacked competence to dismiss him; second, that mandatory provisions of Punjab Police Rule 16.38 were violated, in that no immediate information was given to the District Magistrate as required by sub-rule (1), the District Magistrate never decided whether preliminary investigation should be conducted by police or by a selected Magistrate of 1st class, and sub-rule (2) was not properly observed. The Sub-Judge held the first ground against the Government and decreed the suit, declaring the dismissal void, while finding that Rule 16.24 had been complied with and that permission of the District Magistrate had been obtained under Rule 16.38. The Government's appeal to the Additional District Judge was dismissed. The High Court, following an earlier Division Bench decision, upheld that the Superintendent of Police (Traffic) was not competent to dismiss the constable. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court noted that the issue of competency was concluded against the plaintiff by its decision in Union of India v. Jagjit Singh. However, the appeal failed on the second ground. The Court referred to Delhi Administration v. Chanan Shah, where it had held that even assuming Rule 16.38 to be directory, there had been no substantial compliance when the District Magistrate was not informed and no investigation was conducted under his directions. In the present case, the Court found that no immediate information was given to the District Magistrate about the complaint against the constable, and the District Magistrate did not decide whether the investigation was to be conducted by a police officer or by a selected Magistrate of 1st class. Though the District Magistrate purported to give permission under sub-rule (2) of Rule 16.38, the first part of the rule had not been complied with at all. Consequently, the departmental inquiry was vitiated and the order of dismissal was declared illegal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Inquiry - Competency of Superintendent of Police (Traffic) to Dismiss - Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 16.38 - The respondent, a foot constable, challenged his dismissal on the ground that the Superintendent of Police (Traffic) was not a District Superintendent of Police and hence incompetent. The Supreme Court noted that this issue stood concluded against the plaintiff by its earlier decision in Union of India v. Jagjit Singh, but the appeal was decided on the second ground of non-compliance with Rule 16.38. Held that the first ground is concluded against the respondent; however, the dismissal is illegal due to violation of Rule 16.38 (Paras 754H-756D). B) Service Law - Disciplinary Inquiry - Mandatory Requirements of Rule 16.38 - Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 16.38(1) and Rule 16.38(2) - The rule required immediate information to the District Magistrate of any complaint indicating commission by a police officer of a criminal offence in connection with official relations with the public; the District Magistrate had to decide whether investigation would be by police officer or selected Magistrate having 1st class powers, and departmental action could follow only if the Magistrate so ordered. In this case, no immediate information was given to the District Magistrate nor did he decide the mode of investigation; the Magistrate's later permission under sub-rule (2) could not cure the initial non-compliance. Held that the departmental inquiry was vitiated and the order of dismissal declared illegal; appeal dismissed with costs (Paras 754H-756D).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Superintendent of Police (Traffic) was competent to pass the order of dismissal; and whether the mandatory provisions of Punjab Police Rule 16.38 were complied with, particularly regarding immediate information to the District Magistrate and his decision on the mode of investigation
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs. It held that the first issue of the Superintendent of Police (Traffic)'s competency stood concluded against the plaintiff by Union of India v. Jagjit Singh, but the dismissal was illegal due to non-compliance with Punjab Police Rule 16.38. The Court found that no immediate information was given to the District Magistrate, nor did the District Magistrate decide the mode of investigation as required by the first part of Rule 16.38; therefore, the subsequent permission under sub-rule (2) could not cure the defect, vitiating the departmental inquiry and the order of dismissal.
Law Points
- Punjab Police Rule 16.38 requires immediate information to District Magistrate of any complaint indicating commission by police officer of criminal offence in official relations with public
- District Magistrate must decide whether investigation to be conducted by police officer or selected Magistrate with 1st class powers
- departmental action only if District Magistrate so orders for reasons recorded
- non-compliance with first part of rule vitiates departmental inquiry even if later permission under sub-rule (2) is obtained
- competency of Superintendent of Police (Traffic) to dismiss was decided in favour of Government by Union of India v. Jagjit Singh but appeal failed on procedural non-compliance
