IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Mehrotra, J.
DHARMENDRA KUMAR DIKSHIT - Appellant
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANPUR - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 292 Of 1955
Decided On : 09/16/1955
POLICE ACT - SECTION 7 - POLICE REGULATIONS - PARA 479 (F) - INQUIRY UNDER SECTION 7 - AUTHORITY OF DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a head constable, was officiating as a sub-inspector of police when he was accused of extorting money from a citizen. He was suspended and reverted to his substantive rank, and an inquiry was conducted under Section 7 of the Police Act by a deputy superintendent of police, Sri Saxena. Saxena recommended the applicant's dismissal, and the Superintendent of Police upheld the recommendation. The applicant appealed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Inspector General of Police, but both upheld the decision to dismiss him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Sri Saxena was not authorized under para 479 (f) of the Police Regulations to conduct the inquiry under Section 7. The court interpreted para 479 (f) to mean that the authority granted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police of a particular range to a Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct an inquiry under Section 7, Police Act is operative only so long as the Deputy Superintendent of police is working within that range.
Issues: 1. Whether Sri Saxena was authorized under para 479 (f) of the Police Regulations to conduct the inquiry under Section 7. 2. Whether the applicant could challenge the order of the Superintendent of Police on the ground of want of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that para 479 (f) of the Police Regulations means that the authority granted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police of a particular range to a Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct an inquiry under Section 7, Police Act is operative only so long as the Deputy Superintendent of police is working within that range. As soon as he is transferred to some other range, the authority ceases to be operative. Therefore, Sri Saxena did not have the authority to conduct the inquiry under Section 7.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the Superintendent of Police dated 20-12-1952.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari or any direction be issued to the opposite parties quashing the order of the Superintendent of Police, kanpur, dated 20-12-1952 by which he dismissed the applicant from service.
( 2 ) THE facts alleged in the affidavit filed along with the petition are that on 19-8-1952, the applicant, who was holding the substantive post of a head constable, was officiating as a sub-Inspector of Police and was posted at police station Cantonment as incharge of Rail Bazar chauki in the City of Kanpur. The allegation was that on the night between. 23rd and 24th august, 1952, the applicant along with two constables entered the house of one Nadir Hussain in mohalla Mirpur and threatened to lock him up and other inmates of the house under the gambling Act in order to extort money from them and thereafter the applicant and the constables received money from them. On these allegations, the applicant was suspended and reverted to the substantive rank of head constable on 26-8-1952. Thereafter proceedings under Section 7, Police Act were started against him and were conducted by Shri S. K. Saxena, officiating Deputy Superintendent of Police. Sri saxena gave his findings on 26-11-1952 and recommended that the applicant be removed from the police force. The findings were submitted to the Superintendent of Police; Kanpur for necessary orders. Sri Mardan Singh, who was at that time officiating Superintendent of Police, Kanpur City, issued a letter under his signature to the applicant and the applicant was asked to give his explanation to the findings arrived at by Sri Saxena. The applicant submitted his explanation to the officiating superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police, by his order dated 20-12-1952, uphold the findings arrived at by Sri Saxena and the applicant was dismissed from service. An appeal was filed by the applicant to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern, Range, kanpur who, by his order dated 12-5-1053, rejected the appeal. The applicant then filed a second appeal before the Inspector General of Police who, by his order dated 18-3-1954, upheld the decision of the subordinate authorities. The applicant then made a representation to the State government but he was directed to make his representation through proper channel and the representation was then withheld. Thereafter the present petition was filed. (3) A counter-affidavit has been filed on be half of the opposite parties in which it is stated that on the morning of 24-8-1952 the matter was reported to the Station Officer Cantonment, Sri Gajendra singh. On 26-8-1952, Sri Gajendra Singh informed through phone to the Superintendent of police, City. Same day the Superintendent of Police suspended the applicant and reverted him to the substantive rank of head constable. Thereafter the Superintendent of Police ordered an inquiry into the matter by the Circle inspector. The Circle inspector submitted his report on 6-9-1952 and on the strength of that report, proceedings under Section 7, Police Act were started against the applicant. The Deputy superintendent of Police, Sri Saxena, who held the inquiry against the Applicant eventually submitted his findings to the Superintendent of Police on 26-11-1952 with the recommendation that the applicant should be removed from service. The recommendation was accepted by the Superintendent of Police by his order dated 20-121952 and he dismissed the applicant from ser vice. An affidavit was further filed by the petitioner on 24-8-1955 in which he deposed that the applicant came to know that Sri Saxena, deputy Superintendent of Police, was not authorised by the higher authorities, that is the Deputy inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Kanpur under para 479 (f) of the Police Regu lations to conduct the inquiry under Section 7, Police Act.
( 3 ) THREE points have been raised by the applicant in the present
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.