Back
SP Can Impose on Sub-Inspectors Under Police Regulations:
The has affirmed that a Superintendent of Police (SP) is competent to initiate and impose , such as , on Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors under the . A single bench of Justice Deepak Khot rejected the petition of Lajja Shankar Mishra, who challenged the punishment imposed by the in , arguing that the SP lacked jurisdiction.
The Road to Court
Lajja Shankar Mishra, who joined as a Sub-Inspector in 1983 and later rose to Deputy Superintendent of Police, was issued a joint in along with an Assistant Sub-Inspector while posted at Bhagwa police station in Chhatarpur district. Following a where three of four charges were unproved and one partially proved, the SP imposed a penalty of withholding one increment with . The co-charged ASI was .
Mishra's appeal before the was rejected in . He then filed a representation before the , which was dismissed in on the ground that a was not maintainable under . A subsequent before the was also rejected in on limitation grounds.
The Competence Question
The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate , contended that under , a required prior sanction of the Governor, and that the SP was not the appointing authority for Sub-Inspectors—the was. Therefore, the SP could not impose a major penalty like withholding increment with . The petitioner also argued that his representation before the IG should have been treated as a under (2), which allows an aggrieved person to apply for revision.
Respondents, represented by Panel Lawyer , argued that the petition was hopelessly barred by , filed eight years after the original punishment order. They submitted that the , framed under the , exclusively govern Class III non-ministerial posts, and empowers the SP to inflict punishments under , including withholding increment.
Court's Reasoning: Police Regulations Prevail
The court examined the Schedule to the 1966 Rules, which contains a note stating that Class III non-ministerial posts in the Police Department are governed by the , and therefore the 1966 Rules do not apply to them.
"As per
, the Superintendent of Police is empowered to inflict punishment on SI and ASI as provided under
upon SI and ASI,"
the court observed, rejecting the petitioner's ground on lack of competence.
The court further relied on a Division Bench judgment in , which held that the SP has competency to initiate proceedings under , and that the regulation does not limit inquiry to a solo or .
Regarding the rejection of the representation, the court acknowledged that under (1) the IG has revisional powers, and sub-regulation (2) allows consideration of an application as revision. However, since Mishra had already availed the remedy of a , the court found that relegating the matter back to the authority for revision would be unjustifiable.
"The orders passed by the authorities are merged with the order passed in the
,"
the court noted.
Key Observations from the Judgment
The following observations from the judgment are noteworthy:
-
"The ground of the petitioner that the Superintendent of Police is neither empowered nor having jurisdiction to initiate by issuing show cause notice and cannot inflict the punishment as per Rule 18 of the Rules of 1966 is not tenable in the eyes of law."
-
"From perusal of the Police Regulations as stated hereinabove, it is found that under of the Police Regulations, the Superintendent of Police is empowered to initiate departmental enquiry and also to inflict punishment as provided under Regulation 214."
-
"Every appellate order by a shall be liable to revision by such on application made in that behalf by the person against whom the order has been passed."
-
"Therefore, as the next channel of challenge to the said orders has already been availed, at this stage, relegating the matter to the authority to decide the revision, would not be justifiable and in accordance with law."
The Final Word
The High Court dismissed both , upholding the punishment imposed by the Superintendent of Police. The court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge and affirmed the disciplinary action taken under the Police Regulations. The ruling clarifies that the power of Superintendents of Police to initiate joint inquiries and impose major penalties on Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors derives from the , and the applicability of the general Civil Services Rules is excluded for such posts.
