TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissal Order Quashed for Lack of Jurisdiction and Competence</h1> <h3>Suresh Chandra Versus Himangshu Kumar Roy and Ors.</h3> The court held that the dismissal order dated 6-5-1950 was made without jurisdiction and by a person not competent to do so. The order was quashed, and ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction and competence to dismiss the petitioner.2. Adequacy of opportunity for defense in departmental proceedings.3. Applicability of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.4. Nature of departmental proceedings as judicial or quasi-judicial.5. Validity of departmental proceedings post-acquittal in criminal court.6. Compliance with procedural rules and regulations.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction and Competence to Dismiss the Petitioner:The petitioner contended that the order of dismissal was passed by an officer not competent to do so. Under Rule 4(a) of the Police Regulations, Bengal, 1915, appointments of lower grade clerks are made by the Deputy Inspector General of the Range. The petitioner was appointed as a lower grade clerk in 1927 or 1928 by the Deputy Inspector General of the Range. However, the dismissal order dated 6-5-1950 was made by respondent 2, who held the rank of Superintendent of Police. According to Article 311 of the Constitution of India, a person cannot be dismissed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. Therefore, the order of dismissal was held to be made without jurisdiction and was quashed.2. Adequacy of Opportunity for Defense in Departmental Proceedings:The petitioner was given reasonable opportunities to defend himself against the charges. Despite being repeatedly given opportunities, the petitioner did not avail himself of such opportunities and the enquiry had to be held in his absence. The court found that the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in the departmental enquiry, and he could not make any grievance on that score.3. Applicability of Article 311 of the Constitution of India:Article 311(1) of the Constitution stipulates that no person holding a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. Since the petitioner was appointed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and dismissed by a Superintendent of Police, the dismissal order violated Article 311(1) and was thus without jurisdiction.4. Nature of Departmental Proceedings as Judicial or Quasi-Judicial:The court held that departmental proceedings under the Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1936, are quasi-judicial in nature. These proceedings involve giving an opportunity to the charged person to make a representation, conducting an inquiry, hearing and weighing evidence, and considering all facts and circumstances before arriving at a decision. Therefore, an order made in such proceedings can be interfered with by a Writ of Certiorari.5. Validity of Departmental Proceedings Post-Acquittal in Criminal Court:The petitioner argued that after being acquitted of the charges in the criminal proceedings, the departmental proceedings on the same charges were without jurisdiction and not warranted by law, citing Article 20(2) of the Constitution. However, the court held that Article 20(2) pertains to judicial proceedings before a court or legal tribunal and does not apply to departmental or disciplinary proceedings. Rule 863 of the Police Regulations allows for departmental punishment irrespective of a court's acquittal.6. Compliance with Procedural Rules and Regulations:The court examined the relevant rules, including Rules 8, 9, and 10 of the Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1936, which outline the ranks of officers competent to impose penalties and the procedural requirements for dismissing an officer. The court found that the dismissal order did not comply with these rules, as it was made by an officer not competent to do so.Conclusion:The court concluded that the order of dismissal dated 6-5-1950 was made without jurisdiction and by a person not competent to make it. The rule was made absolute, and the order of dismissal was quashed and canceled. The petitioner was entitled to the costs of the proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
