Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a writ petition filed by a head constable in the High Court of Mysore challenging the State Government's order enhancing his punishment from demotion to dismissal under Rule 17(2) of the Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1956. The respondent started service as a police constable in the State of Bombay in 1935 and became a head constable after he was allotted to the State of Mysore consequent on the reorganization of states. In 1962, disciplinary proceedings were commenced against him on the charge that he was found missing from his post between 11:30 P.M. on March 21, 1962 and 3:30 P.M. on the next day. The Superintendent of Police found him guilty of the charge and demoted him to police constable. The respondent preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police but that was dismissed. He then filed a revision before the State Government under Rule 17 of the Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1956. The Government thereafter issued a show cause notice asking why the punishment should not be enhanced, and after hearing him, enhanced the punishment to one of dismissal. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Mysore to quash the order on two grounds: that the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted in accordance with law, and that the enhancement of punishment was beyond the competence of the Government because Rule 17(2) of the Rules was ultra vires Section 25(2)(c) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The High Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with law, but that the Government had no jurisdiction to enhance the punishment, and therefore quashed the order of the Government enhancing the punishment. The State of Mysore appealed to the Supreme Court on certificate. The Supreme Court analysed Section 25 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and Rule 17 of the Rules. It noted that Section 25(1) empowers the State Government or authorized officers to impose punishments like suspension, reduction, dismissal or removal on police officers. Section 25(2)(a) authorizes the Inspector-General, Commissioner, Deputy Inspector General and Superintendent of Police to exercise such power in respect of subordinate police officers. Section 25(2)(c) provides that the exercise of any power conferred by this sub-section shall be subject always to such rules and orders as may be made by the State Government in that behalf. The Court held that the language of Section 25(2)(c) only permits rules and orders for the exercise of the power conferred by Section 25(2)(a), meaning rules that regulate procedure or the manner of arriving at a decision. It does not permit the State Government to make a rule or order arrogating to itself a power of revision over an order of punishment passed under Section 25(2)(a). Once the exercise of that power results in the imposition of a punishment, the punishment becomes final subject only to an appeal authorised by Section 27 of the Act. Therefore, Rule 17(2) of the Rules, which empowered the Government to call for records and enhance punishment, was clearly beyond the competence of the State Government under Section 25(2)(c). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs, affirming the High Court's decision.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Police Discipline - Ultra Vires Delegated Legislation - Bombay Police Act, 1951, Section 25(2)(c); Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1956, Rule 17(2) - State Government framed Rule 17(2) empowering itself to revise and enhance punishments imposed by Superintendent of Police under Section 25(2)(a) - Supreme Court held that Section 25(2)(c) only authorizes rules and orders regulating the exercise of power by disciplinary authorities, not arrogating revisional power over final orders - The decision under Section 25(2)(a) becomes final subject only to appeal under Section 27 - Held Rule 17(2) is ultra vires and order enhancing punishment quashed (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 17(2) of Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1956, which empowered the State Government to call for records and enhance punishment imposed under Section 25(2)(a) of Bombay Police Act, 1951, was ultra vires Section 25(2)(c) of the Act.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs. Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that Rule 17(2) of Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1956 was ultra vires Section 25(2)(c) of Bombay Police Act, 1951 and that the State Government had no power to enhance the punishment.
Law Points
- Section 25(2)(c) of Bombay Police Act
- 1951 empowers State Government only to make rules regulating exercise of disciplinary power
- not to create revisional jurisdiction
- punishment under Section 25(2)(a) becomes final subject only to appeal under Section 27
- Rule 17(2) of Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules
- 1956 is ultra vires Section 25(2)(c)
