JAGJIT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this writ petition by Jagjit Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police, against the Punjab State and five others briefly stated run as follows. The petitioner was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police on 27th August, 1961, and continues to hold the same post uptil now. According to Rule 7.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , he being an upper subordinate and in his capacity as mounted officer purchased a suitable horse somewhere in the month of March, 1963. He remained in charge of the Police station Ramdas, district Amritsar from the month of April, 1963, to the 8th September, 1963. Thereafter he was posted as Lines Officer, Amritsar, from 9th Septembver, 1963, to 2nd April, 1964. During the period of his posting as Lines Officer he maintained horse. He was paid the horse allowance amounting to Rs. 510/- for this period, of course on his submitting the required certificate that he was maintaining a horse in fit condition which was his property under riding at the place of his positing at his own expense. The Inspector General of Police, respondent No. 2 or the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, did not tell him that during his posting as Lines Officer, Amritsar, he was not required to maintain the horse. He continued to draw the Horse Allowance for the period following 2nd April, 1964, when he was posted as Station House Officer at other police stations. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, respondent No. 4 in pursuance of the circular letter issued by the Inspector General of Police, respondent No. 2 directed the Superintendent Police, Hoshiarpur, respondent No. 5 to recover Rs. 510/- from the petitioner which had been paid to him as Horse Allowance for the period from 9th September, 1963 to 2nd April, 1964. The petitioner alleges that the circular issued by the Inspector General of Police and the order given by the Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, were illegal, invalid, mala fide, unwarranted, oppressive, unreasonable and contrary to law amongst others also on the following grounds :-

(2.) The Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, in his written statement explained that the impugned circular annexure 'A' and the order annexure 'B' were issued on an audit objection raised by the Accountant General Punjab, that Horse Allowance could not have been given to the petitioner when he was working as Lines Officer, Amritsar, from 9th September, 1963 to 2nd April, 1964, as the nature of his duties did not extensive movement. The circular, annexure 'A' is based on Rule 2.11 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Vol. III (T.A. Rules). He went on to say that the Inspector General of Police Punjab, moved the competent authority to regularise the post-payment of Horse Allowance but he did not mention the result of his effects. None of the other respondent filed any written statement.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that the petitioner as Sub-Inspector under Rule 7.2, Chapter VII of the Punjab Police Rules was required to maintain a horse. He further referred to Chapter X Rule 10.75 which gives the rate at which Horse Allowance is to be given to a Sub- Inspector. The relevant Rules ran as under :-