STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. JATINDRA NATH ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that is involved in this appeal is whether the order of dismissal dated June 5, 1963 of the respondent, a police constable, passed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Hooghly, is legal and valid. It is not disputed that the respondent was appointed by the Superintendent of Police. The trial court held that as the Additional Superintendent of Police held the same rank as that of the Superintendent of Police, the impugned order passed by the former did not offend against the provision of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The lower appellate court, however, took a different view and it was held by it that the Additional Superintendent of Police was inferior in rank to that of the Superintendent of Police and accordingly the impugned order was illegal and inoperative. The lower appellate court set aside the impugned order of dismissal and decreed the suit. Hence this appeal.

(2.) Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 provides inter alia that subject to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution and s0uch rules as the State Government may from time to time make under the Act, the District Superintendents of Police may at any time dismiss, suspend or reduce any police officer of the subordinate ranks. The State Government framed Regulations named Police Regulations, Bengal under S. 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and under Ss. 2, 3 and 7 of the Police Act. Mr. Provash Chandra Bose, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, the State of West Bengal has placed strong reliance on Regulation 1(i) which provides that the word "Superintendent" means Superintendent of Police and includes an Additional Superintendent and any officer, not below the rank of Inspector, temporarily discharging the duties of the Superintendent of Police when the latter is incapacitated or absent from headquarters. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Superintendent of Police also includes an Additional Superintendent of Police. This contention, in our opinion, is without any substance. It is clear from Regulation 1(i) that the word "Superintendent" will include also an Additional Superintendent of Police and any officer not below the rank of Inspector only when they are to discharge the duties of the Superintendent of Police when the latter is incapacitated or absent from headquarters. The Police Regulations, Bengal have made a distinction between the Superintendent of Police and the Additional Superintendent of Police. Under clause (a) of Regulation 39, the Additional Superintendent is in subordinate alliance, with the Superintendent and holds a position similar to that of a second in command of a regiment. Clause (b) of Regulation 39 provides for the delegation by the Superintendent of Police of his powers to the Additional Superintendent of Police. It is, therefore, manifest from Regulation 39 that the Superintendent of Police is higher in rank than the Additional Superintendent of Police.

(3.) The appellant has also placed reliance on the fifth paragraph of S. 1 of the Poise Act, 1861. It provides that the words "District Superintendent" and "District Superintendent of Police" shall include any Assistant District Superintendent or other person appointed by general or special order of the State Government to perform all or any of the duties of a District Superintendent of Police under the Act in any District. A similar contention was made before the lower appellate court, but the lower appellate court overruled the same and in our opinion, rightly, on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove by any evidence that the Additional Superintendent of Police was appointed by the State Government to perform all or any of the duties of a District Superintendent of Police under the Act. In our view, therefore, the Additional Superintendent of Police being inferior in rank to the Superintendent of Police was not competent to dismiss the respondent from service. The impugned order of dismissal was, therefore, hit by the provision of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and accordingly, it was illegal, inoperative and void.