PARSU RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in U. P. Police Force on 5-5-1943. He was promoted as a Head Constable in 1949 and has been holding that post since then. A First Information Report was made against the petitioner by another constable purporting to be one under S. 392 IPC in respect of an incident which was alleged to have taken place in the night of 2/3 May 1970. A final report was submitted in the case which was accepted. Subsequently on 3-2-1971, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet under the signatures of Kameshwar Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanpur City. The petitioner denied the charges and contested the matter in departmental proceedings. The inquiry officer submitted his findings to the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur City, who gave a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted his reply on 29-11-1971. The Superintendent of Police Kanpur city was not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner and by order dated 18-12-1971, dismissed the petitioner from service. An appeal filed by the petitioner to the Deputy Inspector General of Police failed.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contended that as the petitioner was appointed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, as a constable and promoted as a Head Constable by the same officer, the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur City could not pass the impugned order as he was not of the same rank as the appointing Officer. After the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Management of D. T. U. V/s. Shri B. B. L. Hajelay, 1972 AIR(SC) 2452 and in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s. Ram Pratap Singh, 1976 AIR(SC) 2301, the dismissing authority must be of the same rank as the appointing authority. These cases further lay down that the mere fact that the dismissing authority enjoys the same powers by delegation or otherwise on the appointing authority would not justify the order, as there cannot be any delegation of rank. Before, however, we go into the question as to whether the Superintendent of Police, City Kanpur is of the same rank as the Superintendent of Police of a District, it is necessary to see as to whether the petitioner was appointed by the Superintendent of Police. In para. 24 of the petition, it is stated that the petitioner's appointing authority is the Superintendent of Police and he is the head of the police in the district. It is further stated that the Superintendent of Police of the City is not the Head of the Police Force in the district, and his jurisdiction is confined to the city of Kanpur and he is subordinate to the Superintendent of Police of the district. In Para. 25 it is stated that the Superintendent of Police City was not the petitioner's appointing authority. A reply to paragraph 24 is contained in para. 21 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. It is averred that in accordance with para. 479 (f) of the Police Regulations and the Notification dated 20-4-1968 published in the police Gazette dated 15-5-1968, the Superintendents of Police City or the Superintendents of Police Rural area or even Additional Superintendents of Police are empowered to perform all the duties of the District Superintendents of Police, and enjoy all the powers of District Superintendents. of Police in matters of punishment, dismissal etc. Para. 25 of the petition is not admitted on account of the averments made in paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit. During the course of hearing, we wanted to see the actual order of appointment of the petitioner as Constable and Head Constable, and asked the petitioner to produce them or file copies of them. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which the copy of the initial appointment order of the petitioner has been filed as Annexure "S. 1". This annexure indicates that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable on a pay of Rs. 15/- per month, from 4-5-1943 by the Superintendent of Police, Etawah. In this affidavit, it is also stated that the petitioner made applications for being given information as regards his appointing authority to the post of Constable and Head Constable and in reply thereto, be received information to the effect that he was recruited in the Police Department on 4-5-1943 and promoted' to the post of Head, Constable on 8-5-1949, but the name of the appointing and promoting authority was not clear from the record, and as such information in this respect could not be given. In para, 7 of this affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head. Constable by Sri Vijai Singh, Superintendent. of Police, Farrukhabad. The facts contained in this affidavit have not been denied. We may as such take it that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable by the Superintendent of Police. In view of the fact that the petitioner was appointed by the Superintendent of Police, it appears to be reasonable to place reliance on the averments in the affidavit to the effect that he was promoted as Head Constable by the Superintendent of Police, for it would be rather queer that the appointing authority for a lower post i. e. of a Constable would be the Superintendent of Police while that of promotion vests in an officer,, who does not enjoy the same rank.

(3.) We may now-consider as to whether the Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police Kanpur City are officers; of equal rank. The relevant portion of paragraph 12 of the Police Regulations runs thus: