Mandatory disciplinary procedure under police regulations can invalidate dismissal where preliminary criminal process is not followed.

A complaint alleging that a police officer took money during a search and did not fully return it was treated as disclosing a cognizable offence of criminal breach of trust by a public servant, bringing paragraph 486 of the U.P. Police Regulations into play. The discussion then explains that the Police Act, 1861 and the regulations formed a statutory disciplinary code, and that paragraph 486 required a preliminary criminal-law procedure before departmental action against a subordinate police officer. On the majority view, that preliminary step was mandatory and non-compliance made the dismissal illegal. Wanchoo, J. dissented, treating the provision as directory and accepting substantial compliance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 so as to attract paragraph 486 of the U.P. Police Regulations; (ii) Whether paragraph 486 of the U.P. Police Regulations and the disciplinary procedure under Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 were mandatory and enforceable so that non-compliance vitiated the dismissal of the police officer.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 so as to attract paragraph 486 of the U.P. Police Regulations.

Analysis: The complaint alleged that money was taken from the complainant during a search by the police officer and was not fully returned. On those facts, the property was entrusted for a specific purpose and the alleged misappropriation amounted, at least prima facie, to criminal breach of trust by a public servant. That brought the matter within Section 409, which is cognizable.

Conclusion: The complaint disclosed a cognizable offence, and paragraph 486 was applicable.

Issue (ii): Whether paragraph 486 of the U.P. Police Regulations and the disciplinary procedure under Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 were mandatory and enforceable so that non-compliance vitiated the dismissal of the police officer.

Analysis: The constitutional scheme in Articles 309, 310 and 311 preserves the pleasure tenure of public servants but subjects it to the express constitutional protections in Article 311. The Police Act, 1861 and the regulations made under it formed a statutory code governing disciplinary action. Paragraph 486 prescribed that a cognizable complaint against a subordinate police officer must first be dealt with under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the purpose of that procedure was not merely administrative but to regulate the lawful exercise of disciplinary power. The majority held that, in this context, the provision was not a mere guide to internal administration but a condition governing the valid exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction. As no investigation under Chapter XIV was held before the departmental action, the procedure was not properly followed.

Conclusion: Paragraph 486 was mandatory, and the dismissal was illegal for non-compliance.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary order could not be sustained because the statutory procedure governing action against the police officer was not followed before dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory disciplinary rule governing action against a public servant prescribes a preliminary procedure as a condition for the valid exercise of disciplinary power, the authority must comply with it, and non-compliance renders the resultant dismissal illegal when that rule is not merely collateral to the constitutional safeguards but forms part of the operative statutory scheme.

Concurring Opinion: The majority held the appeal liable to be dismissed. Wanchoo, J. dissented, taking the view that paragraph 486 was directory and that substantial compliance, together with the constitutional safeguards, was sufficient; on that approach, the dismissal would not have been invalidated for want of strict adherence to the preliminary procedure.

---