LAWS(BOM)-1956-10-5

D A KOREGAONKAR Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

Decided On October 04, 1956
D.A.KOREGAONKAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BOMBAY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a petition filed by the petitioner who was a member of the Bombay City Police Force against an order of dismissal dated 8-12-1954. On the 21-7-1953 a notice was served upon him to show cause why he should not be suspended. On the 24-7-1953 he submitted his reply and ho was suspended on the 27-7-1953. Charges were furnished to him on the 2-11-1953 and the charges briefly were, first, that he joined one Rebello in engaging in trade in respect of certain watches which had been smuggled into India by Rebello, that he also contracted a debt in respect of these watches because although a sum of Rs. 2510/- was due to Rebello he had only paid him a sum of Rs. 1,400/-, and that his whole conduct appearing in these transactions was prejudicial and likely to throw discredit on the discipline and reputation of the Police Force. The second charge was that he was slack in his supervision, and the third charge was that he was found in his residence on the 16-7-1953 smelling of alcohol. On the 19-11-1953, the petitioner made a representation against the inquiry officer. The inquiry officer was Assistant Commissioner Rane. That representation was rejected by Government and the inquiry went on. On the 13-7-1954, the findings of the inquiry officer were submitted. On the 8-10-1954 a show-cause notice was served upon him to show cause against the punishment proposed to be imposed. He submitted his reply on the 3-1-1954, and on the 8-12-1954, as already pointed out, Government passed an order of dismissal, and at the time of the order of dismissal the petitioner was holding the rank of an Inspector in the Police Force.

(2.) NOW, the main ground which was urged before Mr. Justice Coyajee and which has been urged before us is that he was dismissed without reference to the Public Service Commission, and what is relied upon is the provision of Article 320 (3) of the Constitution and that Article provides :

(3.) NOW, on this aspect of the case, under Act, IV of 1902, which was the earlier Police Act, "subordinate ranks" was defined under Section 3 (m) as meaning any ranks below that of the Deputy Superintendent. Therefore, while this Act was in force, an Inspector was a member of the subordinate rank, and a rule was framed by the Commissioner of Police under Section 12 (a) of this Act by which Police Service was divided into two categories for the purpose of appointments, viz. , Provincial Service and Subordinate Service, and in the Subordinate Service were to be found "inspectors". Rule 2 dealt with appointments to the cadre of Superintendents of Police, which was placed in the Provincial Service. Rule 3 dealt with appointments to the cadre of Inspectors and it provided that appointments to this cadre shall be made by the Commissioner of Police by promotion of meritorious officers from the lower ranks of the Greater Bombay Police, Therefore, under the old Act and under these rules the position was clear that an Inspector belonged to the Subordinate Service and that appointments to this cadre was made by the Commissioner of Police. When the new Act, XXII of 1951, was passed, under Section 2 (16) an Inspector no longer belonged to the Subordinate ranks because "subordinate ranks" was defined as members of the Police Force below the rank_ of the Inspector, and the whole argument of Mr. Jhavery under this head is that because an Inspector by Act, XXII of 1951, was made a member of the Provincial Service and ceased to be a member of the Subordinate Service, therefore, his appointment could only be made by Government and not by the Commissioner of Police. The short answer to this submission is that notwithstanding this change in the status of "inspector", rule 3 continued in force and under that rule appointment to the cadre of Inspectors had still to be made by the Commissioner of Police. This Rule 3 was continued under Section 5, the first proviso to which enacts: