Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD
MOOTHAM, CHATURVEDI, JJ.
Jagannath Prasad
Versus
State of U.P.
Civil Misc. (Writ) Nos. 7854 and 7717 of 1951
Decided On : 22-03-1954
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - PUBLIC SERVICE - DISMISSAL OF POLICE OFFICER - POWER OF GOVERNOR - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS (ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1947 - VALIDITY - CONSULTATION WITH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a police officer, was dismissed from service by the Governor under the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947, after an enquiry by a Tribunal appointed under the Rules found him guilty of corruption and other misconduct. The petitioner challenged his dismissal on the grounds that the Governor had no power to dismiss him, that the Disciplinary Rules were invalid, and that the Tribunal had failed to comply with the Rules and the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Governor had the power to dismiss the petitioner at pleasure, subject only to the provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution, and that the Disciplinary Rules were validly made under S. 7 of the Police Act. The Court also held that the Tribunal had substantially complied with the Rules and that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the Governor had the power to dismiss the petitioner at pleasure. 2. Whether the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947, were valid. 3. Whether the Tribunal had complied with the Rules and the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Governor had the power to dismiss the petitioner at pleasure, subject only to the provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution, because: (a) Under the common law, servants of the Crown hold their office during the pleasure of the Crown, and this rule has been replaced in India by statutory provisions. (b) S. 240(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and Art. 310(1) of the Constitution provide that every person who is a member of a civil service of the Crown or of a State holds office during the pleasure of the President, Governor, or Rajpramukh, as the case may be. (c) The only exceptions to this general rule are those expressly provided by the Act or the Constitution itself, such as the provisions of Art. 217(1) and 311(2) of the Constitution. 2. The Court held that the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947, were validly made under S. 7 of the Police Act because: (a) S. 243 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which provided that the conditions of service of the subordinate ranks of the police force shall be determined by or under the Acts relating to those forces respectively, does not affect the power of the Crown to dismiss a police officer. (b) S. 7 of the Police Act, which empowers certain officers to dismiss police officers of the subordinate ranks, is not a delegation of the Crown's power of dismissal but a separate statutory power which does not restrict the Crown's power to dismiss its servants at its pleasure. 3. The Court held that the Tribunal had substantially complied with the Rules and that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice because: (a) The petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, as required by Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. (b) The Governor exercised his discretion in ordering the dismissal of the petitioner, and the considerations which induced him to do so are not justiciable. (c) The Disciplinary Rules are administrative rules, and the contravention of their provisions will not confer upon the petitioner a cause of action.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition with costs.
MOOTHAM, J. :- This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution which gives rise to a question of some constitutional importance.
2. The petitioner held the substantive rank of Inspector of Police. In 1946 he was appointed to the Anti-Corruption Department and in the following year he was promoted to the officiating rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
In January, 1948, an anonymous letter was received by the Inspector-General of Police making charges against the petitioner. After making certain confidential enquiries the Inspector-General formed the opinion that the, petitioners conduct required investigation and he directed the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, to take the necessary action. At the same time he placed the petitioner under suspension and reverted him to his substantive rank of Inspector.
3. Under the orders of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police an enquiry was conducted by Sri Krishna, Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department, whose report was in due course submitted to the Inspector General of Police.
4. In the meantime, on 4-11-1947, the Governor of the United Provinces had made rules known as the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947,"for regulating in certain cases the conduct of disciplinary proceedings and the award of punishment to members of the public services under the Governors rule-making control."
Under these Rules the Governor purported to confer upon himself power to refer to a Tribunal constituted in accordance with the Rules cases relating to Government servants in respect of matters involving, inter alia, "corruption", "failure to discharge duties properly" and "personal immorality" as defined in the Rules.
The Tribunal was required to make such enquiry as was appropriate, and thereafter to forward its findings, together with the views of an assessor co-opted by the members of the Tribunal, to the Governor with its recommendations with regard to punishment.
Rule 10(1) declared that the Governor was not bound to consult the Public Service Commission on the Tribunals recommendations, and that he "shall pass an order of punishment" in the terms recommended by the Tribunal subject to the proviso that he could, for sufficient reason, award a lesser punishment than that so recommended. 5. On the receipt of the report of the enquiry concerning the petitioner the Inspector-General of Police forwarded the proceedings to the Government and the Governor then referred the matter to a Tribunal appointed under the above-mentioned Rules (to which it is convenient to refer as the Disciplinary Rules).
The Tribunal framed three charges against the petitioner alleging that he had been guilty of personal immorality, of corruption and of failure to discharge his duties properly. It came to the conclusion that the first and third charges had been proved, and that the petitioner was guilty of corruption in respect of two of the thirty-two items which formed the subject of the second charge.
The Tribunal by an order made on the 4-2-1950, recommended that the petitioner be dismissed, from the service and be paid one-fourth his salary during the period of suspension.
6. The petitioner was thereafter called upon to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. He submitted a representation to the Governor, but the latter by an order which was communicated to the petitioner on the 5-12-1950, directed that he be dismissed from the police force. The order communicated to the petitioner so far as it is relevant, was in the following terms :
"The Governor has considered your explanation and is of the opinion that you have not been able to clear your conduct. The Governor has therefore under the provisions of Rule 10(1) of the U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1847, ordered your dismissal from the State Police force with effect from the date on which this order is communicated to you".
The petitio
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
