Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
G.C.Bharuka, J.
Ram Anugrah Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 872 of 1988 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 25, 1991
Constitution of India, Art.14 and amendment slip 1 of 86 under Rule 726 III -Charge-sheet issued in 1983 and the order of punishment passed in August 1986 after two years of submission of the enquiry report-in the mean time amendment slip no. 1 of 86 in April, 1986 laying down bar of three years for consideration for promotion which was not provided down under the rule-validity of-date of punishment as the starting date for computing the three years period of disability is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and without any rational basis and is violative of Art. 14-AIR 1989 SC 1133. (Paras 9 & 10)
Police Act, 1861, sec. 4, 12 and the Bihar Police Manual, Rule 851-appellate authority to hear appeal-order of withholding of the increment for three years passed in the departmental proceeding by D.I.G.-appeal disposed by the Inspector General (B.M.P.)-propriety of-delegation of authority - a reading of rule clearly shows that the appeal lay only to Inspector General-sec. 4 of the Act makes it crystal clear that in a State there can be only one Inspector General and in the State of Bihar the Director General of Police has been designated as the Inspector General under the Act-neither the Act nor the rules authorise the Inspector General of Police to delegate its appellate power-any delegation of power was impermissible and bad in law - even the approved of the State Govt. cannot make such delegation as valid-Inspector General (B. M. P.) had no jurisdiction to consider and reject the statutory appeal and order was quashed. (Paras 5 & 6)
G. C. Bharuka and J JJ.
1. - The present writ application has been filed by the petitionerfor quashing the order dated 18-8-1986 passed by the respondent deputy Inspector General of Police avarding major punishment to the petitioner by withholding increment for three years (Annexure-7) at also the appellate order dated 28-9-1988 (Annexure-5) passed by the Inspector general of Police. B. M. P. Bihar (respondent No.5), by which he has rejected the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner also claims that he has been illegally denied his right of promotion.
2. The petitioner had entered in Bibar Police service on 11-3-1959. He has been working on the post of Inspector of Police (Armed) since 21-7-1976 in Bihar Millitary Police (B. M. P. ). He was confirmed on this post in 1977 In 1983 a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, inter alia, on the charge that instead of purchasing tyres and tubes as per the approved tender, Inchek tyres and tubes were purchased and the relevant certificates in this regard were counter signed without proper varification. After due enquiry, the Conducting Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge. In view of the enquiry report and the materials on record, the respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police (B. M, P.)also held the petitioner to be guilty of the charge and awarded him the punishment of withholding the increment for three years This order is dated 18-8-1986 and has bean filed as Annexure-7 to the writ application against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector general of Police (B. M. P.) respondent No.5. but the same has been rejected by the Order as contained in Memo No.2367 dated 28-9-1988 (Annexure-11 ). The petitioner has also been denied the promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The further case of the petitioner is that keeping in view his seniority he became entitled the promotion in the year 1980 itself but the promotion Committee took up the matter of promotion of Inspectors to the post of D. S. P, only in 1986. The Promotion committee recommended the promotion of Inspectors junior to the petitioner, namely, Jamshed Alam, S. K. Sidiki and Permanand Pandey but did not consider the case of the petitioner on the ground that he has been awarded major punishment in the present departmental proceeding on 18-8-1986. According to the petitioner the said Committee did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, deeping in view the police order Amendment Slip 1/86.
3. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the Order dated 18-8-1986 (Annexurc-7) passed by the respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police as also the appellate Order (Annexure-11) passed by the Inspector general of Police (B. M. P.) on various grounds. One of the grounds for challenging the appellate Order is that under Rule 851, the statutory appeal against an Order of major punishment, passed by the Deputy Inspector central lies to the Inspector General and therefore, the respondent Inspector general (B. M, P.) had no jurisdiction to consider and dismiss the appeal of the petitioner.
4. In reply to this question it has been submitted by the respondents that the power to entertain and dispose of the appeals has been delegated by the Inspector General of Police to Inspector General (B. M. P ) pursuant to powers under Sec.12 of the Police Act, 1861 (hereinafter referred to as the act) and as such, the Inspector General (B. M. P.) had acted within his Jurisdiction in disposing of the appeal of the petitioner.
5. For appreciating the issue involved, it would be proper to quote rule 851 of the Rules framed under the Act, which provides for appeals in case of major punishment. The Rule reads as follows :
"851. (a) No appeal shall lie except in cases of major punishments enumerated in Rule 828. (b) Against an order of dismissal, removal, redaction, withholding of promotion or periodical increment, suspension with loss of pay, remo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
