Back
2012 Supreme(Raj) 984
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Prem Singh Vs. State of Rajathan & Ors. (Mishra, CJ.)
HON'BLE ARUN MISHRA, CJ.
HON'BLE AJAY RASTOGI, J.
HON'BLE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.
Prem Singh
Versus
State of Rajathan & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 331 of 1995; 3970 of 2002 and 57 of 2009,
decided on 20.9.2012
G.C. Gupta & A.K. Bhargava, for Petitioners;
G.S. Bapna, Senior Advocate & Advocate General with Veyankatesh Garg and Dinesh Yadav, Addl.Advocate General, for State
Headnote:Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, Rule 15(ii) — Whether Superintendent of Police is competent to impose the penalty of removal or dismissal specified respectively in clause (vi) and (vii) of Rule 14? — Held — Inview of the Note (i) below Rule 15(1) of the Rules of 1958, authority who is empowered to make appointment to a service, is competent to inflict any of the penalties specified in Rule 14 and as per Note (ii) to Rule 15(1) of the Rules of 1958 power could be delegated by State Government or Head of Department to any authority subordinate thereto — The Superintendent of Police/Commandant or Officer of equivalent rank being authority empowered to make appointment to a service, is competent to impose penalties specified in clause (vi) and (vii) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958. (Para 49)
Answered in affirmative.
jktLFkku flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;U=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;e] 1958] fu;e 15¼ii½ & D;k iqfyl v/kh{kd] fu;e 14 ds [k.M ¼vi½ o ¼vii½ esa Øe'k% fofufnZ"V in ls gVkus ;k inP;qr djus dh 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir djus gsrq l{ke gS\ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & 1958 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 15¼1½ ds uhps fVIi.kh ¼i½ dh n`f"V ls] izkf/kdkjh tks lsok esa fu;qfDr djus gsrq l'kDr gS] og fu;e 14 esa fofufnZ"V 'kkfLr;ksa esa ls dksbZ Hkh 'kkfLr yxkus esa l{ke gS vkSj 1958 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 15¼1½ dh fVIi.kh ¼ii½ ds vuqlkj jkT; ljdkj ;k foHkkxk/;{k }kjk muds v/khuLFk fdlh Hkh izkf/kdkjh dks 'kfDr;ka izR;k;ksftr dh tk ldrh Fkh & iqfyl v/kh{kd@dek.MsaV ;k led{k Js.kh dk vf/kdkjh lsok esa fu;qfDr djus esa l{ke izkf/kdkjh gksus ds dkj.k 1958 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 14 ds [k.M ¼vi½ o ¼vii½ esa fofufnZ"V 'kkfLr;ka vf/kjksfir djus gsrq l{ke gSA ¼in la[;k 49½
ldkjkRed esa mRrj fn;kA
“Whether in view of the note (ii) below Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, Superintendent of Police is competent to impose the penalty of removal or dismissal specified respectively in clauses (vi) and (vii) of Rule 14 thereof?”
2. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.331/1995 Prem Singh vs. State of Rajathan & ors. , the petitioner has questioned the order of dismissal from service passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City and the order passed by the Dy.Inspector General of Police, Jaipur dismissing appeal upholding the penalty of dismissal from service. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Constable by the Superintendent of Police and he was confirmed also.
3. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3970/2002 Rishal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., the petitioner has also questioned the order of dismissal from service passed by the Commandant and the order passed by the Dy.Inspector General of Police dismissing the appeal upholding the order of dismissal.
4. In D.B. Civil Review Petition No.57/2009 The State of Rajasthan & ors. vs. Radhey Shyam, the State of Rajathan has sought review of the judgment dated 5.9.2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.403/2008.
5. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the Rule 14 of Rules of 1958 prescribes various penalties which can be inflicted upon employees. Rule 15 of the Rules of 1958 deals with the Disciplinary Authorities and on the strength of Rule 15, it was submitted that only the Head of the Department or the authority specially empowered by the Head of the Department with the approval of the State Government, shall be the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the Subordinate and Ministerial Service. It was also submitted that the State Government vide order dated 17th October, 1986 in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 15 (1) of the Rules of 1958 has empowered all Regional and District Level Officers, as specified by the concerned Administrative Departments, to impose penalties upto the stoppage of two grade increments without cumulative effect in respect of Members of Subordinate Service Officers directly under their control. Thus, power to dismiss/remove is conferred upon them. The petitioners have also relied upon Rule 12 of the Rules of 1958 and contended that under Rule 12(2), all appointments to the Subordinate and Ministerial Services shall be made by the Head of Department or by any authority specially empowered by the Head of Department with the approval of Government in that behalf, thus, Appointing Authority has to be treated as Head of Department and the Head of Department has not specially empowered the Superintendent of Police to be an authority for purpose of Rule 12(2) of the Rules of 1958. It was also submitted that though the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1974”) earlier regulated the recruitment and terms and conditions of the services of persons appointed to the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service and under Rule 2(a), Superintendent of Police/Commandant is the Appointing Authority in respect of Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Head Constables and Constables, however with respect to the disciplinary matters, Rules of 1958 have to prevail. Similarly, it was also submitted that under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1989”), Superintendent of Police/Commanda
