LexJAGANNATH PRASAD SHARMA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
..
1 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
151
,
I
·
r96r
whole of the mortgagees interest.
t 1s common
_
ground that no other relationship existed between Khan Bahadur
the parties at the date of this letter, and the only sub- Shap°"' Fndoom
sisting relationship was that of mortgagee and mort-
Mazda
gagor. This letter acknowledges the existence of the
v.
said jural relationship and amounts to a clear acknow-
Durg~ P.osad
d
19 f h L. "t t"
A t
It .
Chamana &
Ors.
ledgment un er s.
o t e 1m1 a 10n
c '•
1s con-
_
ceded that if this letter is held to be an ~cknowledg- Gajemfragadkar ].
ment there can be no other challenge agamst the de-
cree under appeal.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with
costs.
Appeal dismissed.
JAGANNATH PRASAD SHARMA
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS.
(S. K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K. c. DAS GUPTA,
J.C. SHAH and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.)
Public Servant-Disciplinary proceedings- Procedure--Two
sets of Rules applicable-Selection of one, if discriminatory-Gover-
nor's power to dismiss police officer-U. P. Disciplinary Proceed-
ings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, r947-U. P. Police Regula-
tions-Police Act, r86r {V of r86r), s. 7-Constitution of India,
Art. r4 .
There were certain charges of immorality, corruption and
gross dereliction of duty against the appellant who was a police
officer. After an enquiry, the Governor of U. P. referred the case
under s. 4 of the U. P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative
Tribunal) Rules, 1947, to a Tribunal. The Tribunal recommend-
ed on February 4, 1950, that the appellant be dismissed from
service. The Governor then served a notice on the appellant to
show cause why he should not be dismissed from service and
after considering the explanation submitted by him dismissed
him with effect from December 5, 1950. The appellant challeng-
ed the order of dismissal, inter alia, on the grounds: (i) that the
Governor had no power under s. 7 of the Police Act and the
U. P. Police Regulations framed thereunder to dismiss a police
officer and (ii) that the enquiry held by the Tribunal violated
r961
March 6.
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1961
Art. 14 of the Constitution as of the two parallel procedures
available under the Tribunal Rules and under the U. P. Police
Jaga••••h Prasad Regulations, the mode prejudicial to the appellant under the
Sharma
Tribunal Rules was adopted.
7. ult1
Held (per Das, Hidayatullah, Shah and Ayyangar, JJ.J that
Stal• oJ<S- 0
~, the enquiry by the Tribunal and the ort\er of dismissal passed
Pradesh
1 "'by the Governor were legal and valid.
Under para. 479(a) of the U. P. Police Regulations, framed
under s. 7 of the Police Act, the Governor had the power to
dismiss a police officer.
Under the Tribunal Rules also, which
were framed in exercise of the various powers vested in the
Governor including the power under s. 7 of the Police Act, the
Governor was authorised to dismiss a police officer. By virtue
of Art. 313 of the Constitution these provisions remained m
operation even after the coming into force of the Constitution.
The authority vested in the Inspector-General of Police and his
subordinates by s. 7 of the Police Act, was not exclusive; it
was controlled by the Government of India Act, 1935, and the
Constitution which made the tenure of all civil servants of a
province or state during the pleasure of the Governor.
The procedure adopted did not violate Art. 14 of the Con-
stitution. Though at the time when proceedings were started
against the appellant two distinct procedures for holding the
enquiry were open for selection by the authorities, the order by
the Governor referring the case under the Tribunal Rules hav-
ing been passed before the Constitution, Art. 14 could have no
application to it even if it was discriminatory. The procedure
prescribed in the Police Regulations is substantially the same as
the procedure prescribed by the Tribunal Rules, and by continu-
ing the enquiry after the Constitution under the Tribunal Rules
and not under the Police Regulations, a more onerous procedure
prejudicial to the appellant was not adopted. The fact that an
or<\er made by a police authority under the Police Regulations
is made appealable whereas an ·order passed by the Governor
under the Ti:ibunal Rules is not made appealable does not
amount to discrimination within the_ meaning of Art. 14. The
Tribunal Rules provide for the giving of reasonaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.