The delegation of disciplinary powers to a superior officer appointed by the Commandant under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, is valid and not ultra vires the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.

Headnote:
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE ACT, 1949 - SECTION 11, 18(2)(D), 27(B), 27(C) - DELEGATION OF DISCIPLINARY POWERS - VALIDITY OF RULE 27 - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - JURISDICTION OF ENQUIRY OFFICER - INITIATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - COMPETENT AUTHORITY - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - LEGALITY - CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE RULES, 1955 - RULE 27(B), 27(C).
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a Lance Naik in the Central Reserve Police Force, was dismissed from service following a departmental enquiry for alleged misconduct. He challenged the order of dismissal, contending that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the charges were framed by an incompetent authority, that the principles of natural justice were violated, and that the rule authorising the delegation of disciplinary powers to a superior officer was ultra vires.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the competent authority, the Commandant, and that the charges were framed by him. The Enquiry Officer, who was a superior officer appointed by the Commandant, was competent to conduct the departmental enquiry and frame charges. The court also held that the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer and the competent authority in the disciplinary proceedings was not vitiated so as to make the order of removal from service illegal or void. The court further held that Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, which authorises the delegation of disciplinary powers to a superior officer appointed by the Commandant, is not ultra vires the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.
Issues: 1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the charges were framed by the competent authority. 2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated. 3. Whether the rule authorising the delegation of disciplinary powers to a superior officer was ultra vires.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the competent authority, the Commandant, and that the charges were framed by him. The Enquiry Officer, who was a superior officer appointed by the Commandant, was competent to conduct the departmental enquiry and frame charges. 2. The court held that the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer and the competent authority in the disciplinary proceedings was not vitiated so as to make the order of removal from service illegal or void. 3. The court held that Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, which authorises the delegation of disciplinary powers to a superior officer appointed by the Commandant, is not ultra vires the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

JUDGMENT - K. MADHAVA REDDY, C.J.:---This second appeal is by the Union of India against the appellate decree in Civil Appeal No. 282 of 1978 on the file of the Assistant Judge, Solapur by which the decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 616 of 1974 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Solapur was reversed and the suit was decreed.

2. The respondent herein is the original plaintiff. He was recruited as Police Constable in the State Reserve Police Force, Group II, Pune on 2nd November, 1965. On charges of indiscipline, after a departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service by an order dated 28-6-1973. In the suit, he called in question the order of dismissal and prayed for a declaration that it was illegal and void and prayed for reinstatement in the service and payment of arrears of salary and allowances due to him and in the alternative to declare that the order of dismissal does not disqualify him from having such other employment as he may get. He was originally enlisted as an Armed Police Constable on 2nd November, 1965 by the Commandant, State Reserve Police Force Group-II, Pune in the Maharashtra State and served as such till 31st December, 1967. He was then taken over to the Central Police Force as Constable with effect from 1st January 1968 under the control of the Commandant, 27th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force at Calcutta. He was thereafter promoted from the rank of Constable to the rank of Lance Naik and was holding that post upto 11th March 1973. That the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.C.B./27, Enquiry Officer, Central Reserve Police Force, Dhubri served a charge-sheet on him on 6th April, 1973 under section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 for remissness and grave misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a member of the force. The allegation against him was that he beat one Premsing of D/82 Border Security Force and another water carrier Motilal of F/27 Border Security Force when he tried to intervene and stop the assault at the Cinema show which he went to witness along with other C.R.P.F. Constables under the Command of Jamadar Mahipal Singh on 11th February, 1973. The above charges were communicated to him by the Enquiry Officer and after receiving his explanation and recording the evidence of 12 witnesses, the Enquiry Officer submitted the Enquiry Report to the Commandant, 27th Battalion, 2nd respondent herein. Along with the copy of the enquiry report, he was served show cause notice to show cause as to why the report of the Enquiry Officer should not be accepted and punishment imposed. The penalty proposed was one of dismissal from service. After receiving his written representation, the Commandant held the charges proved and came to the conclusion that he was not a fit person to be kept in the service. Accordingly by order dated 28th June, 1973 he imposed the punishment of dismissal from service with effect from the date of the service.

3. The principal attack on the order of dismissal is that the Commandant had no jurisdiction to take any disciplinary proceedings. It was contended that the order of removal was not passed by a competent authority. It is also argued that in any event, no disciplinary proceedings could be taken against him in respect of an incident which occurred outside his official duties, that is, at a Cinema Show. That matter was subject to Civil Law and not subject to Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.

4. The plaintiff calls in question the said dismissal order on the ground that the principles of natural justice were violated in conducting the inquiry. He complaint that he was not informed the date of hearing and that the Enquiry Officer recorded the evidence behind his back; that he was not supplied with the copies of the statement of allegations and the statements of witnesses to enable him to prepare his defence. It was also pleaded that he was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the enquiry itself was held to take

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1985 Supreme(Bom) 144

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYK. Madhava Reddy, C.J.Union of India.... Appellant.VersusPundalik Manikrao Waghmare another.... Respondents.Second Appeal No. 721 of 1980, decided on 4-7-1985.Advocates appeared :C.M. Kothari, A.G.P., for appellant.P.N. Karlekar, for V.M. Potdar, for respondent No. 1.

The delegation of disciplinary powers to a superior officer appointed by the Commandant under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, is valid and not ultra vires the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.

Cases Referred (1)