MAKESHWAR NATH SRIVASTAVA versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 863 · Decided: 02-03-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

863 
A 
MAKESHWAR NATH SRIVASTAVA 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
March 2, 1971 
n 
[S. M. S!KRI, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, 
A. N. GROVER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
c 
Police Act 5 of 1861-Rules under s. 46 of Act embodied in Bihar 
.nd Orissa Police Manual 1930-0rder by Inspector-General under ,s, 7 
of Act-Appellate powers of Government under r. 851(b)-Revfsio11<1l 
Powers under s. 853-Power of Suverintendence under s. 3-Scop~ oj. 
. At the releva.nt time the appellant. w~s in the service of the State of 
B1har as officiating Inspector of police: 
After a departmental inquiry 
against him the report of the enquiry officer was submitted to the Inspector 
General of Police with the recommendation that the appellant should be 
given exemplary punishment. Under s. 7 of the Police Act, 1861 the 
Inspector General had power to impose in sqitable cases penalty of dis-
D 
missal, suspension and reduction. The Inspector General exonerated the 
appellant from the charges laid against him but on the basis of certain 
adverse remarks in the confidential character roll of the appellant he 
passed an order reverting the appellant to the substantive rank of sub-
inspector of police for a period of one year. These adverse remarks had 
neve'r been notified to the appellant nor was any opportunity to explain 
them ever offered to him before the order of reversion was passed. In 
appeal the State Government set aside the order of reversion passed by 
E 
the Inspector General on the ground that no opportunity had been given 
to the appellant to explain the adverse remarks, but the Government 
instead passed an order of dismissal disagreeing with the findings of the 
Inspector General and agreeing with the findings given by the enquiry 
officer by whom the appellant had been found guilty. · On further appeal 
to the Governor having been dismissed by the Government the appellant 
filed a writ petition in the High Court. "I:he High Court allowed the writ 
petition but directed that the appellant's appeal should go back io the 
F 
government for disposal accdrding to law. 
The Government thereupon 
senoed notices on the appellant to show cause why he should not be dis-
missed from service. The notice was issued on the strength of rr. 851 (b) 
and 853 of the Bihar and Orissa Police Manual, 1930. 
The appellant 
thereupon gave his reply. 
About a yea~ after the High Coui;t's drder 
quashing the Government's order of d1sm1ssal, t~e Governm.ent t~sued an 
order reinstating the appellant but at the same tune suspendmg him from 
service. 
This was followed by an drder qi~mis~ing the. appellant fr';'m 
G 
service 
The appellant once more filed a pel!tion Ill\ the High Court which 
was dlsmissed in limine. 
By special leave the. present appeal was filed. 
The question for consideration was, whether 1t was ~ompetent tgr the 
Government in an appeal filed by the appellant against t~e or er of 
.:version pa~sed by the Inspectdr General of Police to set aside the find-
. 
of that officer" by which he exonerated the appellant from charges 
::';.inst him which findings were not appealed against by. the depa~me':J, 
and then pass an order of dismissal accepting the findings of t e e • 
H 
quiry officer. 
HELD . · (I) The Act itself confers on the Inspector-~ene'ral power 
10 impose in suitable cases the penalty of dismissal, suspension and reduc-
11-LllOOSup.CI/71 
864 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] 3 s.c.R. 
tion, subject to the provisions of Art. 311 arid the rules made under the 
A 
Act. 
The power of superintendence conferred on the State Government 
by .s. 3 must, !herefore, be read in the light of the provisions of s. 7 under 
~bich the l~gislature has conferred specified powers to the officers men· 
tione.d thei:em. 
Further, an appeal before the Government having been 
proV1ded for. under r. 851 (b), presumably both by the delinquent police 
~cer, as also the department, if aggrieved by an order passed by the 
In~ctor•'9eneral, there would also be no question of the Government 
B 
exercising its general power of superintendence under s. 3 of the Act 
The exereise of such a power is ordinarily possible when there is no 
provision for an appeal unless there are other provisions providing for it. 
[867 D-869 A] 
(ii) Under r. 85~(b) the only question before the Government was 
whether the order of 'reversion_ should be sustained or not. 
There was 
no other matter by way of an appeal before-·the Government by the 
C 
department or by anyone els

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.