Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
G. N. DAS, DEBABRATA MOOKHERJEE
SHIVA NANDAN SINHA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
A. F. O. D. (Mandamus) 159 Of 1952
Decided On : JULY 21, 1953
POLICE ACT, 1861 - SECTION 7 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLES 311, 320, 14, 21 - POLICE REGULATIONS - REGULATION 881 - VALIDITY - SUSPENSION OF POLICE OFFICER - WHETHER CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLE 311 - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE - WHETHER ARTICLE 311 (2) APPLIES TO SUSPENSION - CONSULTATION WITH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - WHETHER ARTICLE 320 (3) (C) APPLIES TO ALL CIVIL SERVANTS - REGULATION 881 - WHETHER VOID OF ARTICLE 21 - SECTION 7 - WHETHER VOID OF ARTICLE 311, 14, 20 (2) - DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - WHETHER ALTERNATIVE OR CUMULATIVE - STATEMENT BY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE - WHETHER JUSTIFICATION FOR PRESUMPTION OF BIAS - INQUIRY OFFICER - WHETHER INIMICALLY DISPOSED TOWARDS APPELLANT - WHETHER PROCEEDINGS QUASI-JUDICIAL.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a police officer, was suspended from service pending an inquiry into certain charges against him. He challenged the validity of the suspension order and the subsequent departmental proceedings, contending that they violated various provisions of the Constitution and the Police Act and Regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suspension order was not in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution, as suspension is not equivalent to dismissal or removal. The court also held that Article 311 (2) does not apply to suspension, as it is not a reduction in rank. Further, the court held that Article 320 (3) (c) does not apply to all civil servants, but only to those for whose appointment an examination has to be held by the Public Service Commission. The court also held that Regulation 881, which provides for compulsory residence in the lines, is not void of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court further held that Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861, is not void of Articles 311, 14, or 20 (2) of the Constitution. The court also held that departmental proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act and Regulation 861 are cumulative and not alternative. The court also held that a statement by the Inspector General of Police to the press, criticizing the police authorities, does not justify the presumption that the police authorities will not deal fairly with the case against the appellant. Finally, the court held that the inquiry officer was not inimically disposed towards the appellant and that the proceedings were not quasi-judicial.
Issues: 1. Whether the suspension order was in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution? 2. Whether Article 311 (2) applies to suspension? 3. Whether Article 320 (3) (c) applies to all civil servants? 4. Whether Regulation 881 is void of Article 21 of the Constitution? 5. Whether Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861, is void of Articles 311, 14, or 20 (2) of the Constitution? 6. Whether departmental proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act and Regulation 861 are alternative or cumulative? 7. Whether a statement by the Inspector General of Police to the press, criticizing the police authorities, justifies the presumption that the police authorities will not deal fairly with the case against the appellant? 8. Whether the inquiry officer was inimically disposed towards the appellant? 9. Whether the proceedings were quasi-judicial?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Suspension is not equivalent to dismissal or removal, and therefore Article 311 of the Constitution does not apply. 2. Article 311 (2) does not apply to suspension, as it is not a reduction in rank. 3. Article 320 (3) (c) does not apply to all civil servants, but only to those for whose appointment an examination has to be held by the Public Service Commission. 4. Regulation 881 is not void of Article 21 of the Constitution, as it is a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public. 5. Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861, is not void of Articles 311, 14, or 20 (2) of the Constitution. 6. Departmental proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act and Regulation 861 are cumulative and not alternative. 7. A statement by the Inspector General of Police to the press, criticizing the police authorities, does not justify the presumption that the police authorities will not deal fairly with the case against the appellant. 8. The inquiry officer was not inimically disposed towards the appellant. 9. The proceedings were not quasi-judicial.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the judgment of Bose J, dated February 29, 1952 dismissing an application filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.
( 2 ) THE facts as they appear from the records of the case are as follows:
( 3 ) THE appellant was appointed Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and was promoted on 16-8-1937 to the rank of officiating Sub-Inspector of Police by the Superintendent of Police and continued as such till 2-1-1945 when he was made a Probationary Sub-Inspector of Police. The appellant was confirmed as a Sub-Inspector of Police on 2-1-1946. The appellant was, at all material times, the officer in charge of the Baranagar Police Station in the District of 24-Parganas. Under instructions from the Superintendent of Police, 24-Parganas, an inspection was made by the Sub-Divisional Police Inspector, Baranagore on 19-5-1951. The inspection revealed several cases of irregularities, lack of supervision and control, breach of discipline and dereliction of duty on the part of the appellant. A report was submitted to the Superintendent of Police who made a personal inquiry on 25-5-1951. The latter directed proceedings to be taken against the appellant and pending inquiry, passed an order of suspension on 27-5-1951. A telephonic message was sent on the same day to the appellant and an order placing the appellant under suspension from 1-6-1951 was issued by the Superintendent of Police on 27-5-1951. The order of suspension set out the charges and directed the appellant to join the Police lines and attend Rajira etc.
( 4 ) ON 14-6-1951, the appellant applied to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range who ordered that "there was no reason to revise the qrder. "
( 5 ) ON 24-6-1951, a set of charges 50 in number, was served on the appellant and the latter was called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed, discharged, reduced or otherwise severely dealt with for gross misconduct, disobedience of order and neglect of duty.
( 6 ) ON 30-6-1951, the appellant was informed on the telephone that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Baranagar would hold the inquiry on the following day.
( 7 ) THE appellant applied to the Superintendent of Police, 24-Parganas, praying that he might be sent up for trial before a Magistrate under Section 29, Police Act, 1861, but the prayer was rejected.
( 8 ) ON 9-7-1951, the appellant moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a Rule Nisi. As already stated, the application was ultimately dismissed.
( 9 ) THE appellant has accordingly filed this appeal.
( 10 ) MR. Mitra, learned Advocate who has appeared in support of the appeal has pressed certain contentions which I Shall take up seriatim.
( 11 ) THE first contention of Mr. Mitra is that the order of suspension made by the Superintendent of Police was in contravention of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution. The point was not specifically raised in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Moreover, Article 311 (1) speaks only of dismissal or removal. Sus-pension js neither dismissal nor removal. As such Article 311 (1) has no application.
( 12 ) MOREOVER, the appointing authority in the present case was the Superintendent, of Police and not the Deputy Inspector General.
( 13 ) ARTICLE 311 (1) refers to the authority by which the holder of a civil post was appointed.
( 14 ) IN the petition under Article 226, the appellant did not specifically state when he was first appointed and what was the rank of his first appointment.
( 15 ) THE service records show that he was first appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector and was later promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector. The records show that he was appointed as Probationary Sub-Inspector in 1945 and was confirmed in that rank in 1946. At the relevant dates, the Police Regulations of 1943 were in force. Regulations 741 and 830 (g) provide that in case of persons promoted from the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspect
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
