Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sinha
SISIR KUMAR DAS - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Civil Rule 3254 Of 1952
Decided On : FEBRUARY 05, 1954
POLICE ACT - SECTION 35 - DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - ENQUIRY BY OFFICER NOT EXERCISING POWERS OF MAGISTRATE - VALIDITY - ARTICLE 320 (3) (C) OF THE CONSTITUTION - CONSULTATION WITH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - APPLICABILITY - ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE - REQUIREMENTS - DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEE - PROCEDURE - DISCLOSURE OF REPORTS - NECESSITY - DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE - POWER TO REVISE PUNISHMENT - QUASI JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL - ERROR ON THE FACE OF THE PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 42 OF THE POLICE ACT - APPLICABILITY TO DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, was charged with various offenses related to the sale of goods from a police malkhana. An enquiry was conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr. Gope, who drew up formal charges against the petitioner. The petitioner was given an opportunity to submit his explanation and to call witnesses in his defense. However, he was denied access to certain reports prepared by Mr. Gope and other officers prior to the framing of the charges. The petitioner was found guilty of most of the charges and was punished with a reduction in pay. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, exercising his revisionary powers, enhanced the punishment to dismissal. The petitioner challenged the validity of the proceedings and the orders passed against him.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the departmental proceedings against the petitioner were valid and that the Deputy Superintendent of Police had the authority to conduct the enquiry even though he did not exercise the powers of a Magistrate. The Court also held that Article 320 (3) (c) of the Constitution, which requires consultation with the Public Service Commission before disciplinary action is taken against a civil servant, did not apply to the petitioner because he was not a civil servant in the sense contemplated by the provision. The Court further held that the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed dismissal, as required by Article 311 of the Constitution, and that the Deputy Inspector General of Police had the power to revise the punishment imposed by the Superintendent of Police. The Court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to disclosure of the reports prepared by Mr. Gope and other officers prior to the framing of the charges because they were not used in the enquiry or relied upon by the authorities in making their decision. Finally, the Court held that the order of dismissal did not show any error on its face and that Section 42 of the Police Act, which requires actions or prosecutions against Police Officers to be taken within 3 months from when the act complained of was committed, did not apply to departmental enquiries.
Issues: 1. Whether the departmental proceedings against the petitioner were valid despite being conducted by an officer who did not exercise the powers of a Magistrate. 2. Whether Article 320 (3) (c) of the Constitution, requiring consultation with the Public Service Commission before disciplinary action against a civil servant, applied to the petitioner. 3. Whether the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed dismissal, as required by Article 311 of the Constitution. 4. Whether the Deputy Inspector General of Police had the power to revise the punishment imposed by the Superintendent of Police. 5. Whether the petitioner was entitled to disclosure of the reports prepared by Mr. Gope and other officers prior to the framing of the charges. 6. Whether the order of dismissal showed any error on its face. 7. Whether Section 42 of the Police Act, requiring actions or prosecutions against Police Officers to be taken within 3 months from when the act complained of was committed, applied to departmental enquiries.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 35 of the Police Act, which requires departmental proceedings against a police officer above the rank of a constable to be conducted by an officer exercising the powers of a Magistrate, does not apply to proceedings under Section 7 of the Act read with Rule 861 of the Police Regulations. 2. Article 320 (3) (c) of the Constitution, which requires consultation with the Public Service Commission before disciplinary action against a civil servant, does not apply to a menial servant of the humblest category. 3. The requirement of a reasonable opportunity to show cause under Article 311 of the Constitution is satisfied if the employee is given an opportunity to defend himself against the charges and to make representations against the proposed punishment, even if a fresh enquiry is not conducted after the punishment is proposed. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police has the power to revise the punishment imposed by the Superintendent of Police under Rule 884 of the Police Regulations. 5. An employee is not entitled to disclosure of reports prepared prior to the framing of charges if they were not used in the enquiry or relied upon by the authorities in making their decision. 6. An order of dismissal does not show an error on its face merely because the officer who passed the order considered the findings of a similar case in which the employee was found guilty. 7. Section 42 of the Police Act, which requires actions or prosecutions against Police Officers to be taken within 3 months from when the act complained of was committed, does not apply to departmental enquiries.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioner's application and discharged the rule nisi.
( 1 ) THE facts of this case are briefly as follows: The petitioner was appointed a Sub-inspector of Police, in the Bengal Police Force in 1944. In September 1947, he was posted as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Shalimar Government Railway Police Station. In December 1948, he became the Officer in charge of that Police Station. This Police Station had a malkhana attached to it for keeping goods taken charge of by the Police. These goods are sold after obtaining orders from the District Magistrate unless the goods are perishable, in which case they are sold and the approval of the Magistrate obtained subsequently. The petitioner remained in Shalimar during 1948-49 and a good part of 1950. At the end of 1950 he was transferred to Bankura. In the beginning of 1951 the authorities received some anonymous communications regarding the sales by the petitioner from the Malkhana at Shalimar during his incumbency there as the Officer-in-charge.
( 2 ) IT appears that investigations were set on foot by the Criminal Investigation Department and also there was an enquiry by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Howrah, Mr. Aswini Kumar Gope. It is disputed whether Mr. Gope had made a report at this stage but I shall come back to this aspect of the matter later on. The order sheet shows that Mr. Gope looked into certain records, and then drew up a list of 'possible charges' and then submitted it to the S. R. P. who approved of the same. In May 1951 the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation regarding these 'possible charges' (Schedule 'a' to the petition ). The petitioner submitted his explanations on or about 11-6-1951. On or about 20-8-1951, Mr. Gope drew up certain formal charges, seven in number. These, being. approved by Mr. S. C. De Chaudhury, the Superintendent, Government Railway Police, Howrah, were served upon the petitioner and he was called upon to explain the same (Schedule 'c' ). It might be mentioned here that neither in the proposed charges, nor in the formal charges was it mentioned as to what would happen if any or all the charges were brought home. In other words, nothing was said about punishment.
( 3 ) THE enquiry proceedings were entrusted to Mr. Gope who had drawn up the charges. On 4-9-1951, the petitioner applied to the Superintendent saying that there were enquiries and reports made by C I. D. Officers and Mr. Gope, and these reports should be made available to him. Upon this application, Mr. Gope made the following endorsement (Schedule G and H ). "if the reports of these officers are filed in these proceedings in connection with the enquiries, the petitioner is entitled to get copies. As the copies of these reports have not yet been filed he is not entitled to get any copy". S. D. A. Gope. 6-9-51.
( 4 ) THE Superintendent of Police agreed that this was the correct position. This stand I am told is based on Rule 861 (b) of the Police Regulations (1943) which entitles the alleged offender to a copy of the charge and he is allowed to take copies of all evidence, both oral and documentary, contained in the proceedings. On 27-9-1951, the petitioner wrote to the S. P. as follows:"with reference to proceedings No. 31/51 drawn up against me, I have the honour most respectfully to submit that Sri A. K. Gope, Dy. S. P. , Howrah. G. R. P, held a short inspection ofshalimar G. R. F. 8. on 24-3-51 extending over 13 hrs. about Property Register, etc. , and had promised to send comment thereon, 1 further add that Dy. S. P. Howrah, G. R. P. has been working in supervising capacity for more than a year and had made similar checks on many occasions. In the interest of justice and to vindicate my innocence I may have to examine him -. on various aspects as defence witness, if he is not taken as a prosecution witness".
( 5 ) TO this, the S. P. appended the following order on 1-10-1951. "i have no time to enquire into the proceedings. Dy. S. P. will continue to enquire but there is no objection if the delinqu
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
