BASUDEB PAL CHOWDHURY Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an exparte order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police Burdwan Range as contained in his Memo dated June 6. 1978 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Bankura whereby the Deputy Inspector General of Police set aside the order of punishment passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bankura. This Rule is also directed against the initiation of the revisional proceeding by the said Deputy Inspector General of Police, Burdwan Range and the consequential order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bankura in placing the petitioner under suspension retrospectively with effect from May 23, 1978 It appears that the petitioner was an Assistant Inspector of Police and was serving under the Superintendent of Police, Bankura at the relevant time. The said Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was placed under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The Enquiring Officer recommended for his dismissal on the finding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary authority namely the Superintendent of Police, however, considered the said finding of the Enquiring Officer and his recommendation, but instead of passing the order of dismiss all as proposed, the Superintendent of Police reverted the petitioner from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police to the rank of a Constable for a period of one year with effect from "May 23. 1978. It was further directed that the Officer would not get anything more than what he had already drawn during the period of suspension and it was further directed that the period of rank reversion would have to be spent on active duty. It was, however, noted in the order of punishment passed by the Superintendent of Police that the said order of rank reversion would not affect the future service of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner had been undergoing the said order of reversion and before the expiry of the period to prefer an appeal against the said order of reversion, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Burdwan Range, who is also the appellate authority, in the purported exercise of his power as a revisional authority under Rule 884 of the Police Regulations Bengal, set aside the said order of punishment passed by the Superintendent of Police as he was of the view that the punishment inflicted on the petitioner was too lenient. The Deputy Inspector General of Police by his provisional finding against the petitioner asked the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. In view of the fact that the said Deputy Inspector General of Police had set aside the order of reversion passed by the Supdt. of Police, the Supdt. of Police as a consequential measure again placed the petitioner as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, but placed him under suspension with retrospective effect from May 24, 1978.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Deputy Inspector General of Police had no authority to exercise the power of revision under Police Regulation 884 in view of the fact that an appeal lay against the order of punishment passed by the Superintendent of Police reverting the petitioner from Assistant Sub- Inspector to a Constable and the period to prefer the said appeal had not expired when the Deputy Inspector General Of Police ex parte set aside the said order of punishment in purported exercise of revisional power under Regulation 884. The learned Counsel contends that on a reasonable construction of the provisions of Regulations 882, 883 and 884 of the Police Regulations it must be held that the power of revision lies only when there is no provision for preferring an appeal against an order of punishment. He contends that under Regulation 882 the authorities inflicting punishment and the authorities exercising appellate power have been specified and it has been provided in clause (b) of Regulation 882 that no appeal shall lie against- an order imposing any one of the following punishments- censure (except in the case of Inspectors) reprimand, confinement to quarters, punishment drill extra guard or other duty and under clause (c) of Regulation 882 it is provided that against and order of dismissal, removal, reduction, black mark, deprivation of approved service increment, or removal from any office of distinction or special emolument and in the case of Inspectors, censure, there shall be appeal to the authorities mentioned below. It appears that against an order passed by the Supdt. of Police an appeal will lie to the Deputy Inspector General of Police. It appears from Regulation 883 that petitions of appeal or for revision shall be presented to officer against whose order the appeal is preferred, within 37 days of the date of receipt of the order by the petitioner. Every petition of appeal or for revision shall be accompanied by certified copies of the charges made, of the written statement of the defense, if any, end of the order appealed against,

(3.) Regulation 884 provides as follows :-