DHAJADHARI DUTTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this case are shortly as follows : In 1925, the petitioner was appointed as a Sub-inspector of Police under the then Government of Bengal. In the year 1942, he was promoted to be an Inspector of Police. In 1946, he was promoted to the post of a Deputy Superintendent of Police in which post he was confirmed in 1947. It is stated that from 26th March, 1948 the petitioner came to officiate as Superintendent of Police in the Indian Police Service (Senior Scale). In 1951, he was acting as Additional Superintendent of Police, Howrah. While he was acting as Additional Superintendent or Police,, he was called by the Inspector General of police and was informed that adverse comments had been received against him in confidential reports. He thereafter asked for a copy of the adverse report and finally on the 26th March, 1951 he was supplied with a gist of the adverse remarks which runs as follows :

(2.) On the 22nd June, 1951 the Assistant Inspector General of Police, West Bengal, wrote to the petitioner that Government had approved of his reversion to his substantive rank and to post him at Midnapore as Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was stated that a formal order will follow in due course. On the 25th June, 1951 a notification was issued by Government appointing the petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Midnapore. Thus the petitioner who was acting as Additional Superintendent of Police was reverted to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The petitioner thereupon made representation to Government but this was rejected. A further representation was made to the Central Government which also was rejected in March, 1954. The petitioner thereupon has come to this Court and this Rule has been issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a Writ in the nature of Certiorari should not be issued quashing the order of reversion and reduction in rank of the petitioner as mentioned in the petition and the orders referred to in annexures "B", "C", "D" and "F" to the petition and/or why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not issue commanding the respondents to promote or to appoint the petitioner to such post in the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police as may be available as if the order of reversion had not been made, and for other reliefs.

(3.) I might at once state that in the meanwhile the petitioner has retired from service, so that the prayer for re-instatement in any post is no longer possible. The only order challenged therefore is the order of reversion. Here again there cannot be any question of setting aside the order of reversion with a view to re-instate the petitioner in any service. It will merely affect his arrears of pay and possibly his pension. Before I state the points taken by Mr. Anil Kumar Das Gupta on behalf of the petitioner, another tact has to be stated. I have already stated that in 1948 the petitioner was appointed to officiate as Superintendent of Police in the Indian Police Service (Senior Scale). Such appointments prior to January, 1950 appear to have been governed by a certain set of rules made by the Secretary of State for India, known as The Reserved Posts (Indian Police) Rules 1938. Under these Rules, certain posts specified therein were known as "Reserved Posts". The post of District Superintendent of Police was a reserved post. Under Rule 4, the Governor was given the power to appoint a police officer in the civil service of the Crown in India but not being a member of the Indian Police, to any reserved post, other than certain reserved posts mentioned therein, which however does not include the post of a District Superintendent of Police. Every such appointment shall be provisional, and if the person so appointed was intended to hold the appointment for a period exceeding three months, he had to be reported to the Secretary of State and no employment for more than twelve months could be made without his sanction. On the 23rd January, 1950 came into operation a body of rules called "The Indian Police Cadre Rules, 1950". These Rules were promulgated by the Government of India, in the Ministry of Home Affairs, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 241 and Section 247 of the Government of India Act 1935, and the Agreement dated the 21st October, 1946 between the Government of India and the Governments of the Provinces. The Rules are six in number but there is an annexure which is stated to be a "Memorandum regarding the constitution of an Indian Police Service to provide officers for the Central Government and the Governments of Assam, Bihar, Bombay. ..... and West Bengal." It was inter alia stated that the Central Government, and the Province of West Bengal had agreed to constitute a service called "The Indian Police Service" in accordance with the provisions set out in the annexure. The Rules and the annexure, in short, lay down that there was to be a service known as the 'Indian Police Service' in which the recruitment would be either direct or by promotion from the provincial police service. Certain posts were agreed to be filled up by members of the Indian Police Service, but so far as the provinces were concerned, they could only be filled by cadre officers, that is to say, by members of the Indian Police or of the Indian Police Service. In West Bengal there were to be 13 Superintendents of Police in charge of districts and these were to be filled by members of the Indian Police Service in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Police Cadre Rules 1950. There are provisions regarding appointment of persons other than a cadre officer, but we are not concerned with that in this application. So far as the petitioner was concerned, he was holding the post of a Superintendent of Police, and that by promotion. According to the Indian Police Cadre Rules 1950, either there could be a permanent appointment or appointment on probation and in case of probation, upon a successful completion of the term of probation, persons must be confirmed in the Indian Police Service. There is no provision for an officiating appointment for an extended term. Clauses 7 and 8 of the annexure run as follows :