Judgment

MITTER, J.:- This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order dated April 11, 1963 of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench at Delhi) in a Letters Patent Appeal which summarily dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant from a judgment and order in a Second Appeal upholding the decree in favour of the respondent passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi.

2. The questions canvassed in this appeal were whether the dismissal of the respondent from service in the police force was illegal on the ground that the officer entrusted with the departmental enquiry against the respondent was not a police officer; secondly, whether the order of dismissal passed by Shri Jagannath was invalid because he was not a District Superintendent of Police; and thirdly, whether the dismissal was void on account of non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules.

3. In order to appreciate the points raised, it is necessary to state the following relevant facts. The respondent had been appointed a Sub Inspector of police by the Inspector-General of Police in Sind before the partition of India and was thereafter posted in Delhi by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police Delhi after his migration to India. In the year 1949 he was posted as Sub Inspector of Police in Police Station Daryagunj, Delhi. A departmental enquiry was launched against him on the charge of acceptance of bribe in connection with a criminal case in the same year. The officer entrusted with the enquiry was one Diwanchand Bhatia who was employed up to April 1949 as a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the city of Delhi. He retired from service in the month but was re-employed from the date of retirement as a Deputy Superintendent of Police (Enforcement Department). The enquiry against the respondent had taken place after the retirement of the said Diwanchand but during the period of his re-employment. The respondent was found guilty of the charge and was dismissed from service by the order dated December 8, 1949 passed by one Jagannath, a Superintendent of Police in the Delhi Police Force. The appellant (respondent?) filed a susit challenging his dismissal on the grounds already mentioned in the court of the Subordinate Judge Delhi on January 12, 1954. The defendant, Union of India, filed its written statement disputing the contentions of the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge framed several issues; the principal ones relate to the competency of Jagannath to pass the order of dismissal and of Diwanchand Bhatia to conduct the enquiry against the plaintiff. Finding in favour of the plaintiff on both the issues, he decreed the suit. This decree was upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Delhi and in Second Appeal by a single Judge of the Punjab High Court who modified the decree by an alteration in the figure of the salary claimed by the plaintiff but upholding his claim on the main issues. The Letters Patent Appeal, as already stated, was dismissed summarily.

4. The first contention on behalf of be appellant was that Jagannath who was functioning as a Superintendent of Police but not designated as a District Superintendent of Police was quite competent to pass the order of dismissal against the respondent. Under S. 4 of the Police Act V of 1861, an Act for the regulation of Police,

"The administration of the police throughout a general police-district shall be vested in an officer to be styled the Inspector-General of Police, and in such Deputy Inspectors-General and Assistant Inspectors-General as to the State Government shall deem fit.

The administration of the police throughout the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate of the district shall, under the general control and direction of such Magistrate, be vested in a District Superintendent and such Assistant District Superintendent as the State Government shall consider necessary."

Section 3 reads:

"The superintendence of the police throughout a general police district shall ves