PREM CHANDRA JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOUR petitioners have joined this writ petition with the prayer to quash the following orders whereby their services as Constables in, the Bihar Police Force have been dispensed with:

(2.) A brief narration of facts is essential to dispose of this writ petition. The facts with respect to the four petitioners are similar except that those are contained in different orders marked as annexures. The four petitioners had shown acts of bravery in four different occurrences of criminal nature where they had helped in the arrest of accused persons and in containing crime. Impressed by their putative acts of bravery and performance which was by way of social service, the S.P. had, by his separate communications dated 30.6.97 (Annexure 1), 25.9.97 (Annexure 2), 5.3.97 (Annexure 3), and 3.6.97 (Annexure 8), recommended to the State Government for their appointment as Constables. The State Government had acceded to the request leading to their appointments. The appointment letters are not on record. Later on, legality of their appointments were scrutinised, show -cause notices were issued to the petitioners, and separate enquiry proceedings were initiated. They participated in the enquiry leading to the impugned orders whereby their services have been terminated, being in violation of the provisions of Sec. 661(b) of the Bihar Police Manual (hereinafter referred to as 'the Manual ').

(3.) THE respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have opposed the writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Manual is a subordinate legislation framed in terms of Sections 7 and 12 of the Police Act 1861. Therefore, the procedure prescribed in Rule 661 (b) has to be meticulously followed. He relies on the following reported judgments: (1) 2000(3) PLJR 717 (Sudhir Kumar V/s. State of Bihar) (ii) 2003(3) PLJR 159 (Ram Narayan Harijan V/s. State of Bihar) 4.1) He next submits that the impugned orders had been passed by the Director General of Police who is not the appointing authority in terms of Rule 661(b) of the Manual. The power vested in the District Superintendent of Police cannot be exercised by the Director General of Police. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in - (Purtabpore Co. Ltd. V/s. Cane Commissioner of Bihar). He lastly submits that the judgment in CWJC No. 3461 of 2004 is clearly distinguishable on facts.