LexTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS versus BABU RAM UPADHYA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS v. BABU RAM UPADHYA (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, K. N. W ANCHOO and J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 679 Public Servant-Police Officer, dismissal of-Polict; Regula- tions, i~hether mandatory-Disregard of, if invalidates disciplinary action--Autlwrities empow,orcd to take action-If exercise powers of Governor-Police Act, r86r (V of r86r), s. 7-U. P. Police Regula- tions, 1\ara. 486-Constitution of India, Arts. r54, 309, 3ro, 3rr. The respondent was a sub-Inspector of Police. A complaint was received by the Superintendent of Police that the com- plainant was carrying currency notes of Rs. 650 in a bundle when he was stopped by the respondent and his person was searched, that the respondent opened the bundle of notes and handed over the notes one by one to one Lalji, who was with him and that Lalji returned the notes to him but on reaching home he found the notes short by Rs. 2:;0. Proceedings under 1 ) s. 7 of the Police Act were taken against the respondent on the · charge of misappropriation of Rs. 250 and he was dismissed from service by an order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court chal- lenging the order of the dismi,sal on the ground that the autho- rities had acted in violation of Rule I of Para. 486 of the U. P. Police Regulation. This rule required that every information received by the police relating to the commission of a cognizable offence by a Police Officer shall be dealt with in the first place under Ch. XIV, Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court held that the provisions of para. 486 of the Police Regulations had not been observed and that the proceedings taken under s. 7 of the Police Act were invalid and illegal and accordingly quashed the order of dismissal. The appellant contended (i) that the complaint <lid not make out any cognizable offence against the respondent and r. I of Para. 486 was not applicable in this case, (ii) that r. III of Para. 486 enabled the authorities to initiate departmental proceedings without complying with the provisions of r. I, (iii) that the Police Regulations made in exer- cise of the power conferred on the Government under the Police Act delegating the power of the Governor to dismiss at pleasure to a subordinate officer were only administrative directions for the exercise of the pleasure in a reasonable manner and any breach oi the regulations did not confer any right or give a cause of action to the public servant, and (iv) that the regulations we.re only directory and the non-compliance with the rules did not invalidate the order of dismissal. November 25. I 680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1961] 1960 Held, (per Sarkar, Subba Rao and Mudholkar, JJ.) that the order of dismissal was illegal as it was based upon an enquiry The State of Uttar held in violation of r. I of Para 486 of the Police Regula- PYadesh & Othet's tions. v. The facts alleged in the complaint made out a cognizable Babu llam offence under s. 405 Indian Penal Code against the respondent, Upadhya and the provisions of r. I of Para. 486 were applicable to it. A Police Officer making a search of a person was 'entrusted' with the money handed over by the person searched. Rule III of Para. 486 did not deal with cognizable offences, it dealt with offences falling only under s. 7 Police Act and to non-cognizable offences. Rule III did not provide an alternative procedure to that prescribed under r. I. The position with regard to the tenure of public servants and to the taking of disciplinary action against them under the present Constitution was as follows: (i) Every person who was a member of a public service described in Art. 310 of the Constitution held office during the pleasure of the President or the Governor. (ii) The power to dismiss a public servant at pleasure was outside the scope of Art. 154 and, therefore, could not be dele- gated by the Governor to a subordinate officer, and could be exercised by him only in the manner prescribed by the Con- stitution. (iii) This tenure was subject to the limitations or qualifi- cations mentioned in Art. 311. (iv) Parliament or the Legislature of States could not make a law abrogating or modifying this tenure so as to impinge upon the overriding power conferred upon the President or the Governor under Art. 310, as qualified by Art. 31I. (v) P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.