KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, was transferred to Sitapur sometimes in June 1991. But he could not join his transferred post at Sitapur till 20-8-1992, on account of his illness. A charge-sheet dated 1-5-1993 was issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, on account of such absence till 4-4-1992. On the basis of the chargesheet a dis ciplinary proceeding was instituted. While posted at Sitapur the petitioner was under the control of Dy. Inspector General of Police, Lucknow. By an order dated 24-4-1996 (annexure-10 to the petition) the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Lucknow Range, Lucknow directed removal of the petitioner from service under Rule 4 of the U.P. Police Officer of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (herein-after referred to as 1991 Rules). In the meantime the petitioner having been transferred to Varanasi he was working under the control of Dy. Inspector General of Police, Varanasi since January, 1996. On these background Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised a very interesting question as to whether deputy Inspector General of Police, Lucknow could have jurisdiction or competence to pass order of punishment under Rule 7 of the said 1991 Rules, when he is posted under the control of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi.

(2.) ACCORDING to his as soon the petitioner was transferred to Varanasi it was Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi, who is the competent authority to pass order of punishment. From the mo ment the petitioner joined at Varanasi the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Lucknow ceased to have any jurisdiction to punish the petitioner. In support of his contention Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the provisions con tained in Rules, (8) (i), (3) of the said 1991 Rules. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Allahabad Bank v. Prem Narain Pandey, (1995) 6 SCC 634,: 1991 (1) LBESR 63 (SC) Dharmendra Kumar Dilcshit v. Superintendent of Police, Kanpur, AIR 1956 SC 172, State of West Bangui v. Rajat Kanti Sharmadhikary, AIR 1965 Cal. 169, Anant Prasad Seth v. State of West Benagal and others, 1'975 Lab 1C 552 and State of Punjab v.SarwanSingh, 1996Lab I.C. 1045. ******** ******** in support of the contention. He has also relied on Regula tion 479 of U.P. Police Regulations. He has also relied upon various other cases, to which reference would be made at the ap propriate time.

(3.) THE procedure and power of punish ment, place of inquiry, dismissal and removal of Police Officers is covered under 1991 Rules, are provided in rules, 5, 6, 7 and 8 the portions relevant for our present pur pose are quoted below: "6. Place of enquiry: An enquiry against a Police Officer may be held either in the district in which the act or omission regarding which enquiry is proposed to be made, took place or where the Police Officer may be posted at the time of institution of the inquiry. (7) Powers of punishment- (1) THE Government or any Officer of police department not below the rank of the Deputy Inspector General may award and of the punishments mentioned in Rule-4 on any Police Officer. (2)........ (3)....... (4)....... (5)........ (8) dismissal and removal (1) No Police Officer shall be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. (2)........... (3) All orders of dismissal and removal of Head Constables or Constables shall be passed by the Superintendent of Police. Cases in which the Superintendent of Police recommends dismissal or removal of a Sub-Inspector or an Inspector shall be forwarded to the Deputy Inspector-General concerned for orders. (4)..........