SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, C.J.I., S.M. SIKRI, J.M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
Taraknath Ghose, Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2432 of 1966, D /-22-2-1968
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. C. Ghosh, Senior Advocate (P. K. Chatterjee, Advocate with him), for Appellant, Dr. A. V. Seyid Muhammad, Senior Advocate (Mr. S. P. Nayar, Advocate with him), for Respondents.
All-India Services Act, 1951 - Indian Police (Cadre) Rules, 1950 - All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 312 (2) - Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 - Section 3 – Appellant was appointed by Secretary of State for India to Secretary of States Service known as Indian Police - When agreement took place with British Government for independence of India, Central Government in agreement with a number of Provincial Governments including Government of Bihar, constituted another Service known as Indian Police Service - Recruitment to this Indian Police Service began after India attained Dominion status - Whether he desires to be heard in person - Held, under Article 314 of Constitution, right that continued to enure to benefit of appellant was that enquiry to be held in his conduct must comply with requirements of R. 55 of Rules of 1930 - An enquiry ordered under Rules of 1955 is in no way detrimental to interest of person against whom enquiry is held as compared with an enquiry under R. 55 of Rules of 1930 - Rules of 1955 lay down same type of opportunity to be given as did Rule 55 of Rules of 1930 - Under both sets of Rules, enquiry could be ordered by authority under whom person concerned happened to be serving, so that, in case of appellant, order made by Government of Bihar for enquiry does not in any way violate rights which appellant possessed under R. 55 of Rules of 1930 and which were preserved to him by Article 314 of Constitution - Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
BHARGAVA, J. : The appellant, Tarak Nath Ghosh, was appointed by Secretary of State for India to the Secretary of State s Service known as the Indian Police on 25th January, 1937. When agreement took place with the British Government for independence of India, the Central Government on 21st October, 1946, in agreement with a number of Provincial Governments including the Government of Bihar, constituted another Service known as the Indian Police Service. Recruitment to this Indian Police Service began on 15th August, 1947, after India attained Dominion status. Subsequently on 23rd January, 1950, the Governor-General, in consultation with the Provincial Governments, promulgated rules for forming a cadre for the Police Officers. The Rules, known as the Indian Police (Cadre) Rules, 1950, came into force on 23rd January, 1950, and laid down that a number of posts mentioned in the Schedule would be treated as cadre posts and no cadre post shall be filled otherwise than by a cadre officer. Amongst the cadre officers defined in the Rules were included members of the Indian Police and of the Indian Police Service. On 26th January, 1950, the Constitution of India came into force and provision was made in Article 312 (1) empowering Parliament by law to provide for the creation of one or more all-India services common to the Union and the States, and to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to any such service. Article 312 (2) laid down that the services known at the commencement of the Constitution as the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service shall be deemed to be services created by Parliament under this article. In pursuance of the power given to Parliament under this Article, Parliament passed an Act for constituting all-India services. That Act is the All-India Services Act, 1951 (No. 61 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Act recognised the existence of the two All-India Services mentioned in Article 312 (2) of the Constitution and, by Section 3, empowered the Central Government, after consultation with the Governments of the States concerned, to make rules for the regulation of recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed to an All-India Service. Section 4 laid down that all rules in force immediately before the commencement of the Act and applicable to an All-India Service shall continue to be in force and shall be deemed to be rules made under this Act. In exercise of the powers granted by S. 3 of the Act, the Central Government promulgated the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. Under these Rules, it was laid down that the Indian Police Service was to consist of the following persons, viz.:-
(a) members of the Indian Police;
(b) members recruited to the Service before the commencement of these rules; and
(c) persons recruited to the Service in accordance with the provisions of these rules.
The Rules defined "member of the Indian Police" to mean a person who having been appointed to the police service under the Crown in India, known as the Indian Police, continues on and after the commencement of these rules, to serve under the Government of India, or State. Thus, under there Rules, persons appointed to the Indian Police, who had been appointed by the Secretary of State and had continued to serve the Government of India, became members of the Indian Police, and under clause 3 of the Rules, the Indian Police Service included these members of the Indian Police. Subsequently, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 (1) of the Act, the Central Government, after consultation with the Governments of the States concerned, made rules for regulating the discipline in the Indian, Police Service. These Rules, which were enforced with effect from 1st September, 1955, came to be known as the All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1955"). Rule 4 of these Rules was amend
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.