Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
K. L. Shrivastava, J.
BHAGWANDAS AHIRWAR
Versus
STATE OF M P
Decided On : Apr 11,1985
A sub-inspector was appointed by the order of Inspector General of Police. He was dismissed from service by a Deputy Inspector-General of Police who was later on authorised to appoint Sub-Inspectors. The order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police was confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority. It was contended that the dismissal was void.
Held: The order was violative of the guarantee under Art. 311 (1) and is therefore vitiated. The crucial question is whether the Sub-Inspector had been dismissed by an authority sub-ordinate to that by which he was appointed. For answering this question depends upon the fact whether the dismissing authority was of the rank of the appointing authority on the date of appointment. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police was not an appointing authority on the date of the appointment. The fact that later on he was invested with the power of appointment and dismissal of a Sub-Inspector is immaterial. Without reference to any other provision elsewhere in the Act, Regulation or Rule it has to be held that the impugned orders being violative of the Constitutional guarantee under Article 311 (1) of the Constitution suffer from an indelible stamp of infirmity and cannot be allowed to stand. The fact that the impugned 'orders passed by the Deputy Inspector-General were confirmed by the Inspector General in appeals is of little purpose as it cannot have the effect of investing the initially void orders with any validity. [Para 17
( 1. ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition no. 252 of 1981 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma v. State of M. P. and another) filed on 7-8-1981 as they involve common question.
( 2. ) BY the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Bhagwandas seeks quashing of the order dated 25-1-1983 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Indore in a Departmental enquiry whereby he has been compulsorily retired from service and of the appellate order dated 25-6-1983 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Bhopal.
( 3. ) IT is not in dispute that the said petitioner was, in 1956, appointed by the Inspector General of Police as Sub-Inspector of Police The Additional Superintendent of Police, Indore on 7-21981 inflicted on the petitioner the punishment of censure. Subsequently on 27-3-1982 the Deputy inspector General of Police, Indore acting under Regulation 270 of the police Regulations revising that order directed that a Departmental Enquiry be held against the petitioner. Ultimately charge-sheet dated 2-4-1982 was served on him and by the impugned order passed by the Deputy Inspector general of Police he was compulsorily retired from service. ( 4. ) THE petitioner went up in appeal and the Inspector General of police by his order dated 25-6-1983 dismissed the same.
( 5. ) THE other petitioner Mahesa Kumar was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police under order dated 3-1-1962 of the Chief Commissioner, bhopal issued by Inspector General of Police, Bhopal on 18-1-1962. In the Departmental Enquiry held against him, he having been found guilty, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Indore by his ultimate order dated 18-6-1978 dismissed him from service. The appeal preferred against that order has been dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Bhopal by his order dated 23-11-1978. The Home Department of the Government of M. P. on 29-7-1980 rejected his representation dated 6-2-1979 and his prayer for justice made to the Chief Minister evoked no response and hence the writ to the High Court.
( 6. ) THE petitioner Bhagwandass main contention is that as he was appointed by the Inspector General of Police the impugned order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, an officer admittedly subordinate to the former, is violative of the guarantee under Article 311 (1) of the constitution and has to be struck down. It has also been contended that in view of Rule 29 of the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short the Control and Appeal Rules) the Deputy Inspector General could not have revised the order after a lapse of more than six months. It is further contended that the enquiry against him was not fair.
( 7. ) THE petitioner Mahesh Kumars main contention is the same as that of Bhagwandas that his appointment having been made by higher authority the impugned order by the Deputy Inspector General of Police is violative of the constitutional guarantee under Article 311 (1) of the constitution. It was also contended that there was no reasonable opportunity of hearing before the order was passed and that it is perverse.
( 8. ) THE respondents submissions in their returns are that under the notification No. 5399-II-B (ii) dated 14th November, 1960, published in the madhya Pradesh Gazette Part I dated 2-12-1960 at page 1820, the Deputy inspector General of Police was competent to appoint Sub- Inspectors and, therefore, neither of the impugned order of dismissal is violative of the constitutional guarantee referred to above, more so when the Inspector general has maintained the same in appeal. In relation to the writ by bhagwandas it was next contended that as revision has been expressly provided in the Police Regulations, provisions as to the limitation for the same cannot be imported from the Control and Appeal Rules.
( 9. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on the decision in Krishna Kumar v. Divisional A. E. E. , C. Rly. , AIR
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
