TARAKNATH GHOSE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (a) members of the Indian Police;

(2.) On 29th June, 1965, while the appellant was working as the Deputy Inspector-General of Police in Bihar, an order was made by the State Government placing the appellant under suspension pending an enquiry. This order was partially amended by the Central Government by passing an order of suspension of the appellant in view of the enquiry instituted by the State Government. On 13th July, 1965, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court at Patna challenging these orders passed against him The order for institution of an enquiry made by the State Government, which had been directed in pursuance of Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules of 1955, was challenged on two grounds. One ground was that the appellant had never become a member of the Indian Police Service and these Rules did not, therefore, apply to him, so that no enquiry could be instituted against him under these Rules. The second ground was that, in any case, in view of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1930") read with Article 314 of the Constitution, the Government of the State of Bihar had no power to order institution of an enquiry against the appellant, even if it be held that he had become a member of the Indian Police Service. The order of suspension was challenged on the sole ground that, if the enquiry itself had been invalidly instituted, the order of suspension automatically became invalid. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding on both points against the appellant and, consequently, the appellant has come up to this Court under certificate granted by the High Court.

(3.) The first contention put forward by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant never became a member of the Indian Police Service as deemed to have been created by virtue of Article 312 (2) of the Constitution has no force. It is true that the appellant was originally appointed on 25th January, 1937 to the Secretary of State's Service known as the Indian Police and when the Indian Police Service was first constituted on 21st October, 1946, persons, who were members of the Secretary of State's Service known as the Indian Police, did not become members of this newly constituted Indian Police Service. The Indian Police (Cadre) Rules. 1950 also did not bring about any merger of the two Services. All that those Rules did was to constitute cadre posts which were to be filled by Officers belonging to either the Indian Police or the Indian Police Service as it existed at that time. Article 312 (2) of the Constitution simply provided that the existing Indian Police Service constituted on 21st October, 1946 shall be deemed to be created by Parliament under that Article. Thereafter, Parliament passed the All India Services Act, 1951 and under Section 3 of the Act the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 were promulgated laying down that persons, who had been appointed to the Secretary of State's Service-Indian Police, were to be included in the Indian Police Service. Consequently, from the time that these Recruitment Rules of 1954 came into force, all persons, who had been appointed to the Secretary of State's Service-Indian Police, became members of the Indian Police Service, so that, thereafter, they were governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that the provisions in the Recruitment Rules of 1954 that the Indian Police Service shall consist, inter alia, of members of the Indian Police, could not make them members of the Indian Police Service, because, under the Act, the only power that was conferred on the Central Government was to make Rules regulating recruitment to the Service, and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Service, and did not empower the Government to include within the Service persons who were already members of another Service. The argument has to be rejected, because, in our opinion, the provision 1aying down that the Indian Police Service shall consist, inter alia, of members of the Indian Police, amounts to a rule recruiting the members of the Indian Police to this Indian Police Service. It may be mentioned that those persons, who were appointed to the Indian Police under the Crown before Independence ceased to be members of any regularly constituted Service when the Indian Independence Act came into force in the year 1947. When independence was achieved by India, the Secretary of State and the Crown ceased to have any authority in India, so that no service of the Secretary of State or the Crown could continue thereafter. Under the agreement that was entered into by the new Indian Government with the British Government, provision was made that members of the previous Secretary of State's Service could continue to serve the Government of India or a Provincial Government and certain rights were preserved to them if they continued to do so. There was, however, no provision that the old Secretary of State's Service would continue, so that with the passing of the Indian Independence Act, Secretary of State's Services like the Indian Civil Service and the Indian Police ceased to exist.