SUKH DUTT Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has challenged the order passed by the respondent No 2, Inspector General of Police, Himachal Pradesh recalling him from the training course known as upper school training course at Police Training College, Phillaur in Jullundur District of Punjab. His contention is two fold, namely. (1) the respondent No. 2 has no power or authority 10 recall him from the said course ; and (2) even if such power is presumed to be there, he could not have recalled him without complying with the rules of natural justice as the impugned order of recall involves civil consequences adverse to his service conditions.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the petitioner is serving in the Police Department of this State as Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police on which post he was confirmed on 1 -4 -1977. It is an admitted position that he is put in List ˜E in accordance with rule 13.10 of the Rules called Himachal Pradesh Police (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1976 hereinafter referred to as the amendment Rules". List E is maintained for the persons who are found eligible for promotion to the next higher post of Sub -Inspector of Police. It is an admitted position that the Departmental Promotion Committee by it decision dated 26 -3 -1977 selected the petitioner for being sent to be trained in upper school course at Phillaur college. The course for which the petitioner is sent is for the period running from 1 -4 -1977 to 31 -8 -1977. While the petitioner was still taking the training at the said college at Phillor, the Inspector General of Police, respondent No. 2, passed the impugned order on 21 -5 -1977 in the following terms: - "A. S. I., Sukh Dutt of this State undergoing training in the current upper school course at PTC Phillaur may please be returned immediately to the State and directed to report to Commandant H. P. A. P. Junga. He is being withdrawn from training. - This order was communicated by a T. P. message to the principal of the training college at Phillaur. When the petitioner was on casual leave he received this order on 23 -5 -1977. pursuant to this order the petitioner was relieved by the Principal of the college on 7 -6 -1977 but since the petitioner obtained a stay order from this court in this writ petition he was allowed to resume the course on 14 -6 -1977. The petitioner, therefore, is still continuing his training at the Said college.

(3.) The contention which is raised by the petitioner is that according to rule 13.10 of the Rules he has got a statutory right to take the training and, therefore, this right cannot be interfered with by the Inspector General of Police without any reasons. The petitioner has pointed out that order of recall passed by the Inspector General of Police does not record any reason for his recall. He has further contended that there is no provision of law under which the respondent No. 2, the Inspector General of Police has any authority to recall him from training course and he has lastly contended that even if it is presumed that the said respondent has got any inherent authority to recall him from the training the said authority cannot be exercised without complying with the rule of natural justice, that is, without issuing any show cause notice to him because the order of recall involved civil consequences which would be adverse to him in the course of his service.