HARNAM SINGH Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against his reversion from the post of Assistant Sub -Inspector Police to the rank of Head Constable for a period of two years. The order impugned was passed by the Deputy Inspector -General of police vide Order No. 266/OB of 1975 dated May 26,1975 issued from Kashmir Range Police officer Srinagar marked as Annexure A with the petition. This petition is, therefore, filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India read with Section 103 of the State constitution for the quashing of the said order.

(2.) DETAILED narration of facts is not necessary, because it is not disputed that the petitioner was charge -sheeted by the Superintendent of Police who after holding an enquiry submitted his report to the Deputy Inspector General of Police Respondent No.2, who passed the impugned order Learned counsel for the petitioner attacked the order impugned mainly on the grounds that the procedure prescribed for holding the enquiry under the J & K Police Rules (hereinafter called the Rules) has not been followed in imposing the major penalty of reduction of rank from the post of Assistant Sub Inspector to the post of Head Constable. The Superintendent of Police was not authorised to hold the enquiry and that the petitioner at the relevant time in 1974 when the enquiry was set up was under the administrative control of the Jammu Range of Police, whereas the enquiry was held by the Superintendent of police Srinagar was without jurisdiction. That the petitioner was appointed by the Inspector General of police, the imposition of punishment by Deputy Inspector General of Police is violative of Section 126 of the State Constitution, as the punishment is imposed by an officer below the rank of the appointing authority and lastly that the matter was not placed as envisaged by Rule 335 of the Rules before the District Magistrate to obtain the authorisation to hold the enquiry instead of prosecution as the allegations made against the petitioner as alleged amounts to an offence under the provisions of the R. P. C. It is, therefore, submitted that the order impuned being violative of the provisions of Rules 335, 349 and 359 (2) of the rules is liable to be quashed

(3.) CONTESTING the petition, learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the grounds stated in the counter and submitted that the provisions of Rule 334(2) of the Rules were fully complied with Rule 359 (11(2) provides that the punishment can be imposed by giving a opportunity of show cause to the delinquent employee, which was duly done in the present case and that there is no violation of any of the rules as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and there is no violation of Article 311 (2) of the constitution of India and Section 126 of the State Constitution. Reliance is placed on A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1416 (Union of India and another Appellants V/s Tulsiram Patel and others, Respondents) for the proposition that the right to make a representation on the proposed penalty, which was found prior to the amendment of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is taken away by the 44th Amendment of the Constitution. Mr D.K. Khajuria appearing for the respondents also submitted the record pertaining to enquiry at the time of hearing for the perusal of the Court.