Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a writ petition filed by a police officer challenging his dismissal. The respondent was appointed as a constable in U.P. Police Force in 1933, promoted to head constable in 1945, and posted as officer in charge of Police Station Intiathok, District Gonda in May 1952. Complaints were received by District Magistrate that respondent was receiving bribes. On September 16, 1952, District Magistrate directed Sub-Divisional Magistrate to inquire. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate submitted report on November 3, 1952 recommending transfer. District Magistrate endorsed report to Superintendent of Police on November 17, 1952, noting substantial complaints about integrity and suggesting close watch. The respondent was forced on leave, reverted to substantive post of head constable, and later promoted to officiating Sub-Inspector and posted at Sidholi. Meanwhile, further complaints led to C.I.D. probe, which reported on July 26, 1953 that respondent was habitual bribe taker. He was suspended on July 28, 1953 and charged on August 18, 1953 under Section 7 of Police Act, 1861 with nine charges of bribery. Departmental trial was conducted by Superintendent of Police, who found seven charges proved, and after show cause, dismissed respondent on February 22, 1954. The respondent's appeal to Deputy Inspector General was dismissed. He then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution before Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, contending that the offences being cognizable, the Superintendent of Police had no jurisdiction to hold departmental trial without first registering a case under Paragraph 486(1) of U.P. Police Regulations. The High Court accepted this contention and quashed the dismissal. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed by special leave. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants raised several contentions: that Police Regulations were administrative directions and non-compliance would not invalidate dismissal; that regulations were directory; that alternative procedure under sub-para (3) of Paragraph 486 was available; and that the magisterial inquiry had covered substantially all charges, so Paragraph 486 did not apply. The respondent supported the High Court's view. The Supreme Court, in the majority judgment delivered by Subba Rao J., held that the subject matter of the magisterial inquiry and the departmental trial was substantially the same, as seven of the nine charges were covered. The Court observed that Paragraph 486 applies only when no magisterial inquiry is ordered; once a magisterial inquiry has been ordered, the case falls within Paragraph 489(2), which permits departmental trial after such inquiry. The Court rejected the argument that further complaints or C.I.D. inquiries in the interregnum changed the character; since the core misconduct was the same, the departmental trial was valid. The Court therefore set aside the High Court's order and upheld the dismissal. Per Gajendragadkar and Wanchoo JJ., Paragraph 486 was merely directory, and non-compliance would not invalidate dismissal. The appeal was allowed, and the order of dismissal was restored.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Police Departmental Enquiry - Relationship between Para 486 and Para 489 U.P. Police Regulations - When a magisterial inquiry is ordered into complaints against a police officer, Paragraph 486 of the U.P. Police Regulations does not apply; a departmental trial under Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 can be validly held after such magisterial inquiry in accordance with Paragraph 489(2) - The Court held that the subject matter of the magisterial inquiry and departmental trial was substantially the same, comprising seven of nine charges; therefore the departmental trial was a further step after magisterial inquiry and fell within Paragraph 489(2), not Paragraph 486, even though further complaints and C.I.D. probe occurred in the interregnum - Held that the departmental trial was validly held and the dismissal order was not invalid for non-compliance with Paragraph 486(1) (Paras 4-7). B) Service Law - Police Regulations - Nature of Paragraph 486 U.P. Police Regulations - Directory or Mandatory - Per Gajendragadkar and Wanchoo JJ., the provisions of Para 486 are merely directory and non-compliance therewith does not invalidate an order of dismissal - The Court did not rest the majority decision on this ground, but minority view expresses that even if Para 486 applied, its violation would not necessarily vitiate the departmental action - Held that the dismissal was valid (Paras 4-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a departmental trial under Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 is valid when prior magisterial inquiry was held but no case registered under para 486(1) of U.P. Police Regulations; whether para 486 applies when magisterial inquiry ordered.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court order quashing dismissal set aside; dismissal order upheld. The departmental trial was held valid under para 489(2) after magisterial inquiry; para 486 not applicable.
Law Points
- Police Act
- 1861 Section 7
- U.P. Police Regulations Paras 486
- 489
- Departmental trial after magisterial inquiry
- Police regulations directory not mandatory
- Magisterial inquiry constitutes basis for departmental action
- No need to register cognizable offence under para 486 when magisterial inquiry ordered
