Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. CHAKRAVARTTI, S. C. LAHIRI
PRAFULLA MOHAN MUKHERJEE - Appellant
Versus
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
A. F. O. O. 102 Of 1956
Decided On : JULY 02, 1958
POLICE REGULATIONS - Regulation 112 (a) (i) - Regulation 112 (c) - Regulation 861 (e) - Purchase of land by Police Officer - Procedure for disciplinary action - Personal hearing - Consideration of extraneous matters.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Sub-Inspector of Police, was charged with violating Regulation 112 (c) of the Police Regulations of Bengal by purchasing land in a District other than his home District without obtaining prior permission from the Inspector-General of Police. He was also charged with conducting himself in a manner unbecoming of a Police Officer by purchasing a plot of land with a disputed title, knowing that the title was disputed and that a third party was in possession of it with whom he would be involved in litigation. The appellant was found guilty of both charges and was dismissed from service.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the appellant had violated Regulation 112 (c) of the Police Regulations of Bengal by purchasing land in a District other than his home District without obtaining prior permission from the Inspector-General of Police. The Court also found that the appellant had conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a Police Officer by purchasing a plot of land with a disputed title, knowing that the title was disputed and that a third party was in possession of it with whom he would be involved in litigation.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had violated Regulation 112 (c) of the Police Regulations of Bengal by purchasing land in a District other than his home District without obtaining prior permission from the Inspector-General of Police? 2. Whether the appellant had conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a Police Officer by purchasing a plot of land with a disputed title, knowing that the title was disputed and that a third party was in possession of it with whom he would be involved in litigation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Regulation 112 (c) of the Police Regulations of Bengal requires every Police Officer to make a declaration of all immovable property in India, held by him or by his wife or by any member of his family living with him or in any way dependent on him. The Regulation only requires the declaration contemplated by it to be made "on appointment" and thus it is only when an Officer is first appointed that he is to make a comprehensive declaration of the kind contemplated by the Regulation. Subsequent annual statements are provided for in Clause (ii) of Regulation 112 (a) and it is there said that the statement is to be in Bengal Police Form No. 5. A reference to the form prescribed shows that while there is a column in it for an entry as regards properties belonging to the Officer, but held in the name of his wife or someone else, there is no column at all for properties held by an Officer's wife in her own right. 2. The charge of improper conduct, based on such acts as were alleged, seems a little unusual, but it the Bengal Police have set before themselves a standard of conduct which requires them to avoid purchases of properties which might involve them in litigation, it is a matter of administrative or official policy with which the Court has no concern. On the other hand, it may be a matter for deep satisiaction that the Police force of this country subscribe to an unusually lofty code of official conduct.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Judge and quashed the order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, dated the 1st of October, 1953, his order dated the 12th of October, 1953 and also the order of the Inspector-General of Police dated the 4th of February, 1954. The enquiry proceedings were also bad, as they went beyond the ambit of the charges. The proceedings up to and including the submission of the first written statement by the appellant, but not the enquiry following thereupon, having been valid, will not be affected by this order and the respondents will be entitled to proceed from that, stage according to law, if they so desire. The appellant having been found to have been dismissed by an illegal order the order of suspension passed against him will fall to be governed, so far at least as the period subsequent to his dismissal is concerned, by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Gupta v. State of Utter Pradesh.
( 1 ) THE appellant, Prafulla Mohan Mukherjee, was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police by the Deputy Inspector-General on 15-1-1925. On 2-1-1942, he was promoted to the rank of a Sub-Inspector and was placed on probation for one year. On 2-1-1943, he was confirmed in the rank of Sub-Inspector. Thereafter, on 10-11-1944, he was posted as a Sub-Inspector, Intelligence Branch, at 13, Lord Sinha Road and continued to serve in that capacity till the partition of India. After the Partition, the appellant opted for the State of West Bengal and having; done so, continued to serve in his old post till the proceedings out of which this appeal has arisen commenced.
( 2 ) SO far as can be ascertained, the cause of the proceedings was a confidential letter written by the appellant himself on 5-11-1952, to the Special Assistant, Intelligence Branch, West Bengal. In that letter he stated that on 26-5-1952, his wife, Parul Bala Debi, had purchased a certain plot of land situated at Jadabpur in the District of 24-Parganas for a consideration of Rs. 5. 000 and that he had already sought advice from the Office as to how that change in the position of his assets was to be included in his statement for the year 1952, already submitted. He added that the advice he had received was to include the change in the next statement to be submitted in January, 1953. If the appellant had already sought instructions as to what be had to do about the purchase by his wife and had received instructions, as the letter itself states, it is not particularly clear why it should have become necessary to bring that matter again to the notice of his Office, unless it was for the reason stated in the next paragraph of his letter. The next paragraph referred to certain disputes which had arisen with regard to the property in which one Khagendra Naskar, a member of the West Bengal Provincial Congress Committee, was said to be taking great interest and an apprehension was expressed that false allegations might be made against him to his superior Officers. Even fear of false reports against him does not wholly explain the letter, nor is it clear why, if the property was purchased by the appellant's wife with her own money and not by him in the wife's name, it had at all become necessary to inform his Office of the purchase. At one stage of the argument, Mr. Dutt Roy, who appears on behalf of the appellant, submitted that Regulation 112 (a) (i) of the Police Regulations, Bengal, required every Police Officer to make a declaration of all immovable property in India, held by him or by his wife or by any member of his family living with him or in any way dependent on him. If the Regulation referred to applied, the explanation offered by Mr. Dutt Roy would be good explanation, but obviously it does not apply. The Regulation requires the declaration contemplated by it to be made only "on appointment" and thus it is only when an Officer is first appointed that he is to make a comprehensive declaration of the kind contemplated by the Regulation. Subsequent annual statements are provided for in Clause (ii) of Regulation 112 (a) and it is there said that the statement is to be in Bengal Police Form No. 5. A reference to the form prescribed shows that while there is a column in it for an entry as regards properties belonging to the Officer, but held in the name of his wife or someone else, there is: no column at all for properties held by an Officer's wife in her own right. Apparently, it is only once and that at the time of his first appointment that an Officer is required to disclose all properties, whether held by himself or held by any of his relations, living with or dependent on him, but subsequently he is required to make an annual statement only with regard to properties which he himself owns, whether in his own name or in the name of some other person. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the description given in the proceedings to t
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
