Case Note & Summary
The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by employees of State Bank of India and Canara Bank challenging a communication dated 26.9.2014 issued by the Additional Director General of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, Bangalore. The communication directed the banks to terminate the services of the petitioners with immediate effect on the ground that they were involved in caste discrimination against Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe employees. The petitioners, who were working as Single Window Operator, Special Assistant, Head Cashier, Officer, and Clerk in various branches, contended that the police authority had no jurisdiction to order their termination and that the directive was arbitrary and illegal. The High Court of Karnataka, presided over by Justice R. Devdas, examined whether the Additional Director General of Police could issue such a directive. The court noted that the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement is a police authority and its functions are limited to investigation and prosecution under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Act does not confer any power on the police to order termination of employment. The court held that the communication was ultra vires the powers of the police and amounted to an encroachment on the employer's domain. The court quashed the communication and directed the banks to consider the petitioners' cases in accordance with law, if any disciplinary action was contemplated. The judgment emphasizes that police authorities cannot act as quasi-judicial tribunals or substitute their judgment for that of the employer.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Maintainability - Petitioners challenged a communication from the Additional Director General of Police directing their employer bank to terminate their services - Court held that the police authority lacked jurisdiction to issue such a directive and that the writ petition was maintainable against the same (Paras 1-10). B) Service Law - Termination of Employment - Police Directive - Ultra Vires - The Additional Director General of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, issued a communication to the State Bank of India directing termination of services of certain employees based on allegations of caste discrimination - Court held that the police authority has no power under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 or any other law to order termination of employment - The directive was arbitrary, illegal, and without authority of law (Paras 11-20). C) Criminal Law - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3, 4 - Jurisdiction of Police - The police can investigate and prosecute offences under the Act but cannot direct an employer to terminate services of an accused employee - Such a direction is beyond the scope of the Act and violates principles of natural justice (Paras 15-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Director General of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, has the authority to direct a bank to terminate the services of its employees based on allegations of caste discrimination under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the communication dated 26.9.2014 issued by the Additional Director General of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement. The court held that the police authority lacked jurisdiction to direct termination of services and the directive was arbitrary and illegal. The banks were directed to consider the cases of the petitioners in accordance with law if any disciplinary action was contemplated.
Law Points
- Police cannot direct employer to terminate employee services
- Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate lacks jurisdiction to order termination
- Writ petition maintainable against police directive
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
