A departmental inquiry under the Police Act must be conducted in accordance with the Rules framed under the Act, including the requirement for a preliminary inquiry to be held by an authorized officer.

Headnote:
POLICE ACT - DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY - PRELIMINARY INQUIRY - NECESSITY - RULES 3(B) AND 3(C) OF THE BOMBAY POLICE MANUAL - INTERPRETATION - ORDER OF DISMISSAL - VALIDITY - DISCRETION OF THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION - EXHAUSTION OF STATUTORY REMEDY.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a constable in the Bombay City Police Force, challenged an order of dismissal passed against him by the Commissioner of Police. The petitioner argued that the departmental inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Rules framed under the Police Act, specifically that there was no proper preliminary inquiry as required by the Rules.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the departmental inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Rules. The Court found that the preliminary inquiry was held by a Sub-Inspector, who was of a status lower than that of either an Inspector or Deputy Inspector, who alone could hold a preliminary inquiry as provided by Rule 3(c) of the Bombay Police Manual. The Court also found that the petitioner had not exhausted his statutory remedy of appeal to the State Government before coming to the Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with the Rules framed under the Police Act? 2. Whether the petitioner had exhausted his statutory remedy of appeal to the State Government before coming to the Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the departmental inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Rules because the preliminary inquiry was held by an officer who was not authorized to hold that inquiry. The Court interpreted Rules 3(b) and 3(c) of the Bombay Police Manual to require a preliminary inquiry to be held by an officer of the rank not inferior to that of Inspector or Deputy Inspector in cases falling under Rule 3(c). 2. The Court held that the petitioner had not exhausted his statutory remedy of appeal to the State Government before coming to the Court. The Court stated that if the law provides an adequate legal remedy, which remedy is as efficacious as the remedy which the Court can give under the Constitution, then the petitioner must exhaust that remedy before coming to the Court for the exercise of its special jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227.
Final Decision: The Court discharged the rule and made no order on the petition. The Court held that it would not be in the interests of justice to set aside the order of dismissal, considering the technical nature of the petitioner's argument and the fact that the petitioner had not exhausted his statutory remedy of appeal to the State Government.

Judgment

1. The petitioner was a constable in the Bombay City Police Force and by this petition he challenges an order of dismissal passed against him by the Commissioner of Police on 23-6-1955.

2. This case has had rather a chequered career and various attempts have been made by the Police authorities to dismiss the petitioner from service and so far the petitioner seems to have succeeded on one technical ground or another. It appears that on 12-4-1950 Sub-Inspector Khanse obtained an order from a Presidency Magistrate to investigate a case of corruption. The investigation was completed by Sub-Inspector Khanse on 27-10-1950 and he made a report to Inspector Raje.

On 31-10-1950 Inspector Raje reported to Superintendent Subhan, and on 15-11-1950 Superintendent Subhan made a report to the Commissioner of Police. On 16-11-1950 Assistant Commissioner, Deshpande made a report to the Commissioner of Police recommending the suspension of the petitioner who was involved in the Investigation made by Sub-Inspector Khanse, and on 17-11-1950 the petitioner was suspended from service.

On the basis of inquiry made by Sub-Inspector Khanse, Superintendent Paranjpe framed charges against the petitioner and a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner showed cause and Superintendent Paranjpe made a report holding the petitioner guilty, and on that report on 14-6-1951 Assistant Commissioner Pednekar dismissed the petitioner. An appeal was preferred to the Commissioner of Police which was dismissed. The petitioner then appealed to the State of Bombay and the State of Bombay set aside the order Of dismissal on 23-10-1952.

On 31-3-1953 another show-cause notice was served by Deputy Commissioner Pandya. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. Deputy Commissioner Pandya passed the order of dismissal on 14-5-1953. The petitioner appealed to the Commissioner of Police which appeal was rejected. He then served a notice upon Government under Section 80 Civil P. C. on 17-6-1954. The petitioner also appealed to the State against the order of the Commissioner and in appeal the State set aside the order of dismissal on 16-10-1954.

On 14-5-1955 the Commissioner of Police served a show-cause notice upon the petitioner upon which the ultimate order of dismissal was passed which is challenged in this petition, and as already stated the Commissioner of police, after considering the cause shown by the petitioner, passed an order of dismissal on 23-6-1955.

3. The only point urged by Mr. Samant is that the departmental inquiry has not been conducted in accordance with the Rules framed under the Police Act, and therefore to the extent that the show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner of Police is based upon the departmental inquiry, the order of dismissal cannot be justified, and the flaw that is pointed out in the holding of the departmental inquiry is that there was no proper preliminary inquiry as required by these Rules.

In order to understand the contention of Mr. Samant it is necessary to look at the Police Manual which contains the Rules framed for the purpose of holding the departmental inquiry. Rule 3(a) divides departmental inquiries into three categories: (i) Inquiries into misconduct by Inspectors, Deputy Inspectors, Sergeants and Sub-Inspectors; (ii) inquiries into offences by Jamadars, Head Constables and Constables, in which the charge, if proved, would render a major punishment probable; (iii) inquiries into minor offences by Jamadars, Head Constables and Constables.

Now, dismissal is a major punishment and the inquiry against the petitioner who is a constable, inasmuch as it was in respect of a serious offence which would render a major punishment probable, would fall in the category of Rule 3(a)(ii). Rule 3(b) deals with departmental Inquiries held in cases falling under Rule 3(a)(i), and Rule 3(c) deals with cases falling under item (ii), and what Mr. Mistree has urged on behalf of the State is that looking to the langu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis