LexSTATE OF MYSORE AND ORS. versus H. D. KOLKAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
8ss STATE OF MYSORE AND ORS. v. H. D. KOLKAR October 10, 1973 [K. K . MA THEW, M. H. BEG AND A. K. MUKHERJEA, JJ .] Bombay Police Act, 1951-Sectio11 25(2)(a), 25(c)-Rule 17-&le 17(2) investing the State Government witli power to enhance the punishment whetfJer 11/tra vires S. 25(c). Sub-section 2(a) of s. 25 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, Inter alla autffri- ses the Superintendent of Police to impose the punishment mentioned in 1ub- clause (!) on any Police officer subordinate tc> him. By clause (c) of •· 25(2) "the exercise of any power conferred" by sub-secuon 2(a) "shall be subject always to such rules and orrlers as may be made by the Stato Govern- ment" in this behalf. In exercise of the power conferred under clause (c) the State Government framed Rule 17 (2) of the Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeal) Ru!.,, 1956, by which the Government invested itself with the power to call for records and to revise orders passed under sub-section 2(a) of s. 25 and to enhance the punishment. Pursuant to disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, a head cons- table, the Superintendent of Police demoted him as a police constable. The appeal to the D.1.G. police was dismissed. The respondent, thereafter, filed A B c a revision before the State Government under Rule 17 of the Bombay Police D (Ptlnishment and Appeaj) Rules, 1956. The Government, thereafter issued a show cause notice to the respondent stating as to why the punishment imposed upon him by the S.P. should not be enhanced. After hearing the respondent the Government enhanced the punishment to one of dismissal. Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. He urged that (i) !he discip1inary proceedings were not conducted in accordance· with law au <ii) that enhancement of punishment was beyond the competence of the Gov- ernment, as Rule 17(2) was ultra vires s. 25(c) of the Bombay Police Act, E 1951. The High Court held that the disciplin~ proceedings were conducted in accordance with law, but the Government had no jurisdiction to enhance the punishment. The Court, therefore quashed the order of the Govt. enhancing the punishment. The Statt appealed. Dismis~ing the appeal, HELD :It is clear from the language of cl. (c) of s. '25(2) that only rules and orders which could be made under that clanse are rules and orders tor the exercise of the power conferred by s. 25(2). The words ~the exercise of any power conferred by the sub-section shall be subject always to such .F . • · 1·ulea and orders as may be made by the State Government'', ins. 2S(2)(e). would indicate that the GovernQlent have no power to make any role and :>rder arrogating to themselves a power of revision over an order of punish. ment passed under s. 25(2)(a). What is made subject to the rules and orders is "the exercise of any power" conferred under clause 2(a) of s. 2S. Sub-section 2( c) of s. 25 can only mean that the Government wtll have power to PMS rule!. and orders for regulating the procedure or such other matters_ for the exercise of the power conferred by sub-section Z(a) of s. 25 by the officers G mentioned therein. The power to enhance the punishment is a power which can be exercised only after the coitcerned officer has exercised his ·power undet s. 25 (2)(a). In other words, rul_es or orders can be made by the Government under s. 25(2) (c) only for guiding him either in the matter of procedure, of the manner of arriving at a dfcision.: It is obvious from tTie language of s. 25(2)(a) that while that power exercisable under s. 25(2)(a) Is subject ·to rules and orders made by the Government, the dt'cision which . comes into being after the exercise of that power is not subject to the. supervisio~ of the Governmen1· by framing a rule or order making an order in that behalf. Once H the ·exercise of such power resutts in the imposition of a punishment. the punish- menr bec"mes final, subj\Jet only to an appeal which is authorised under 1. 27. The consequence: is that rule 17(2) of the rules bv which the Government sought to acquire power to caJI for the records and to revise orders passed MYSORE v. H. D. ,KOLKAR (Mathew, J.) 859 A under s. 2.5 ( 2 )(a) and to enhance the punishment imposed, was clearly beyond its competence. [861 DJ Civ1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2117 of 1968. From the judgment and order dated April 16, 1968 of the Mysore • High Court in W .P. No. 2545 of !965. ....
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.