1960 (11) TMI 116 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court rules dismissal without following Police Regulations illegal. Procedural rules are mandatory. Pleasure tenure subject to limitations.

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS Versus BABU RAM UPADHYA

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the respondent's dismissal without complying with para 486 of the Police Regulations was ... Whether the power of the Governor under Art. 310 to terminate the services of a Government servant at pleasure is part of the executive power of the State under Art. 154 of the Constitution? Held that:- Paragraph 489 only empowers the holding of a departmental trial in regard to a police officer only after a police investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code. When a rule says that a departmental trial can be held only after a police investigation, it is not permissible to hold that it can be held without such investigation. For all the foregoing reasons, we hold that para. 486 is mandatory and that, as the investigation has not been held under chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code, the subsequent inquiry and the order of dismissal are illegal. For the foregoing reasons we hold that, as the respondent was dismissed without complying with the provisions of para. 486(1), the order of dismissal is illegal and that the High Court is right in setting aside the order of dismissal. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed Issues Involved:1. Whether the provisions of para 486 of the Police Regulations were breached.2. Whether the information received disclosed a cognizable offence.3. Whether the procedural rules under the Police Act are mandatory or directory.4. The constitutional validity of the pleasure tenure under Article 310 and its limitations under Article 311.Detailed Analysis:1. Breach of Para 486 of the Police Regulations:The appellants contended that there was no breach of para 486 of the Police Regulations. The material part of para 486 states that every information received by the police relating to the commission of a cognizable offence by a police officer shall be dealt with under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent argued that the information disclosed an offence under Section 409 of the IPC, which is a cognizable offence. The High Court found that the provisions of para 486 had not been observed, rendering the proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act invalid and illegal. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the failure to comply with para 486 made the subsequent inquiry and dismissal illegal.2. Information Disclosing a Cognizable Offence:The appellants argued that the information did not disclose any offence committed by the respondent. However, the Supreme Court found that the information received by the police related to the commission of an offence by the respondent. The facts alleged in the complaint by Tika Ram made out an offence against both the Sub-Inspector and Lalji. The Court held that the currency notes were entrusted to the respondent for inspection and return, and the misappropriation of these notes constituted a cognizable offence under Section 409 of the IPC.3. Procedural Rules Under the Police Act:The appellants argued that the rules under the Police Act were administrative directions and not mandatory. The Supreme Court, however, held that the rules governing disciplinary proceedings cannot be treated as administrative directions but have the same effect as the provisions of the statute under which they are made. The Court emphasized that the inquiry under the Act must conform to the provisions of the statute or the rules made thereunder. The Court concluded that para 486 is mandatory, and non-compliance with it invalidates the order of dismissal.4. Constitutional Validity of the Pleasure Tenure:The appellants contended that the tenure at pleasure under Article 310 is not subject to statutory provisions. The Supreme Court analyzed the constitutional provisions and held that while Article 310 provides for a tenure at pleasure, Article 311 imposes limitations on this tenure. The Court stated that the Parliament or State Legislatures cannot make a law abrogating or modifying this tenure so as to impinge upon the overriding power conferred upon the President or the Governor under Article 310, as qualified by Article 311. The Court further held that the rules made under a statute must be treated as if they were part of the Act and are legally enforceable.Separate Judgment:Justice WANCHOO, in a dissenting opinion, argued that the rules under the Police Act are directory and not mandatory. He contended that the power of dismissal exercised by the police officers under Section 7 of the Police Act is an indirect exercise of the Governor's pleasure to dismiss at pleasure. He concluded that the failure to comply strictly with para 486 would not invalidate the subsequent departmental proceedings, as the rule is only directory.Conclusion:The Supreme Court, by majority, dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the respondent's dismissal without complying with the provisions of para 486 was illegal. The Court emphasized that the procedural rules under the Police Act are mandatory and must be followed to ensure the legality of disciplinary actions.