GUPTA, J.—The petitioner in this case was appointed as a sub-Inspector of Police on probation with effect from December 2, 1951 by the order of the Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan dated 20/21st December, 1951.

2. According to the petitioner, he was confirmed on the aforesaid post of Sub Inspector of Police by the order of the Inspector General of Police dated September 9, 1952 with effect from August 15, 1952. According to the respondents, however, the petitioner was confirmed by the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur dated June 15, 1955 with effect from June 1, 1955. The petitioner thereafter continued to hold the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. On May 18, 1964 the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi sent a notice under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the rules") along with a statement of allegations, to the petitioner and he was directed to show cause why the punishment of stoppage of five grade increments with future effect be not impose upon him. The petitioner submitted his reply and his case is that he was also given a personal hearing by the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi. But it is not in dispute hat no final decision was communicated to the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid proceedings under Rule 17 of the rules.

3. On October 29, 1964 the petitions was served with a fresh charge-sheet together with a notice under Rule 16 of the Rules, along with substantially the same statement of allegations. A departmental enquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, who in his enquiry report found that the charges framed against the petitioner were not substantiated. The record of the said enauiry conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi was forwarded by him to the Deputy Inspector General of Police Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur who disagreed with the findings arrived at by the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi and was of the opinion that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved from the material on record. The Deputy Inspector General of Police thereupon, after giving a show cause notice to the petitioner and after considering his reply thereto, inflicted the penalty of reduction in rank to the post of Head Constable of Police for a period of one year upon the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police. One of the main contentions of the petitioner in the appeal was that the petitioner was appointed and confirmed by the Inspector General of Police and as such the said authority was alone competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against him and to inflict punishment upon him as a result of such proceedings. The Inspector General of Police by his order dated July 8,1958 (Exhibit 10) accepted the aforesaid contention of the petitioner and allowed his appeal holding that the petitioner was confirmed by the order of the Inspector General of Police dated September 9/10, 1932 and as such the lower authority was not competent either to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner or to award any penalty to him as a result of such proceedings.

4. It appears that some correspondence was exchanged thereafter between the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the office of the Inspector General of Police for over a period of two years. The view of the Deputy Inspector General of Police was that the petitioner was confirmed by his order and as such he was justified in initiating the earlier disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and also in awarding punishment to him, and that the order of the Inspector General of Police dated July 8, 1968 deserved to be reviewed. But it does not appear from the record produced before this Court that the order passed by the Inspector General of Police on July 8, 1968 was ever reviewed by him. However, on September 22, 1970 the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur served a fre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document