LONGMAL Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE six writ petitions of the members of the police service of the State of rajasthan raise some common questions and, therefore, they could he conveniently disposed of by one judgment. Petition No. 1645 of 1964

(2.) BHAWANISHANKER Verma, after receiving his training at Kishangarh, joined the rajasthan Police Service as Sub-Inspector in January, 1956. When he was working in Kota on 27th August, 1962 the Superintendent of Police, Kota (respondent No. 3) by his notice (Ex. 1) asked him to show cause why his grade increments for two years be not stopped for ever because in the course of a departmental enquiry against him he had put an offensive question to Circle Inspector Chhagan Lal alleging that he had taken a bribe of Rs. 200/-from constable Khatola in a departmental enquiry against him. Bhawani Shanker Verma replied this charge but he was awarded the punishments of stoppage of two yearly grade increments with its effect on future (Ex. 2 ). An appeal was preferred by him to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kota udaipur Range, which was dismissed in May, 1963 (Ex. 3 ). A review was preferred before the Governor of Rajasthan but without any success. He has now filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 empowers the authorities named therein to inflict only those penalties which are specified in that section. Language of Rule 3 (1) (f) of the rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') makes the said rules inapplicable to the petitioner because special provision under the Police Act applies to him. Stoppage of grade increments is no punishment under the Police Act and, therefore, the punishing authorities acted without jurisdiction. Even if the Rules applied, then top, the punishment of stoppage of increment with future effect is not contemplated by rule 14 and the order of punishment (Ex. 2) dated 13-12-62 is unauthorised by law. The imposition of punishment has also been challenged on the ground that the right of cross-examination in departmental proceedings would stand impaired if employees were to be punished on that account. He prayed that the order dated 13-12-62 (Ex. 2) be quashed. The non-petitioners, namely, the Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Kota Range, the Superintendent of Police, Kota and the State of Rajasthan have filed an answer to the aforesaid petition. The facts stated by the petitioner are largely admitted but it is asserted that the rules apply as much to the petitioner as the Police Act does. It is also contended that Rule 14 of the Rules includes the punishment imposed on the petitioner. On the question of cross-examination of Circle inspector Chhagan Lal, it is submitted that the question was unduly offensive and the right of cross-examination does not go to that extent. Writ Petition No. 33 of -1965.

(3.) BHAWANISHANKER Verma, the petitioner in writ petition No. 1645 of 1964, has presented this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the punishment awarded to him by the Superintendent of Police on 3-11-62 stopping his three grade increments because of his alleged neglect to co-operate with an excise Inspector and later attempt to falsely implicate him in a case be quashed. After the Superintendent of Police had awarded this punishment the petitioner preferred an appeal before tie Deputy Inspector General of Police and a review petition before the Governor but without success. This punishment is also assailed on the same grounds which the petitioner has taken in his petition No. 1645 of 1964 and the reply of the State is also in similar terms. Writ Petition No. 36 of 1965.