Judgment

MATHEW, J.:- The respondent in this appeal started service as a police constable in the State of Bombay in 1935. He became a head constable 20 after he was allotted to the State of Mysore consequent on the reorganization of the State. In the year 1962, disciplinary proceedings were commenced against him. The charge was 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 as a police constable.

2. The respondent preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police but that was dismissed. The respondent then filed a revision before the State Government under Rule 17 of the Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1956, hereinafter called the "Rules", The Government thereafter issued a show cause notice to the respondent stating why the punishment imposed upon him by the Superintendent of Police should not be enhanced. After hearing the respondent, the punishment was enhanced to one of dismissal by the Government.

3. The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Mysore to quash the order. He raised two grounds in the writ petition: (1) that the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted in accordance with law; and (2) that the enhancement of punishment was beyond the competence of the Government as Rule 17 (2) of the Rules was ultra vires of S. 25 (2) (c) of the Bombay Police Act. 1951, hereinafter called the Act .

4. 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. The Court therefore quashed the order of the Government enhancing the punishment. It is against this order that the appeal has been preferred, on certificate, by the State of Mysore.

5. The appellant contended that Rule 17 (2) of the Rules which authorized the State Government to call for the records of any case in which an order has been passed by an authority subordinate to it and enhance the punishment inflicted by the order was not ultra vires Section 25 (2) (c) of the Act.

6. It is, therefore, necessary to read S. 25 of the Act and Rule 17 (2) of the Rules. The material part of Section 25 reads:

"25 (1) The State Government or any officer authorised by sub-section (2) in that behalf may suspend, reduce. dismiss or remove an Inspector or any member of the subordinate ranks of the Police Force whom he shall think cruel, perverse, remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty or unfit for the same, and may fine to an amount not exceeding one month s pay, any member of the subordinate ranks of the Police Force, who is guilty of any breach of discipline or misconduct or any act rendering him unfit for the discharge of his duty, which does not require his suspension or dismissal.

(2) (a) The Inspector-General, the Commissioner and the Deputy Inspector General shall have authority to punish an Inspector or any member of the subordinate ranks under sub-section (1). A Superintendent shall have the like authority in respect of any Police Officer subordinate to him below the grade of Inspector and may suspend an Inspector who is subordinate to him pending inquiry into a complaint against such Inspector and until an order of the Inspector General or Deputy Inspector-General can be obtained.

xx xx xx

(c) 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.

Rule 17 of the Rules reads:

"1. The State Government shall alone have the power of revision and revision shall lie only in respect of punishments which are appellate.

(2) The State Government, of its own motion or otherwise, may call for the record of any case in which an order has been made by an authority subordinate to it in the exercise of any power conferred on such authority by the Rules and may:

(a) confirm, modify, or reverse the order,