M VENKATASUBBA REDDY Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE MYSORE BANGALORE
LAWS(KAR)-1966-9-1
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on September 22,1966

M. VENKATASUBBA REDDY Appellant
VERSUS
INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, MYSORE, BANGALORE Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SECRETARY NEW MANGALORE PORT AND DOCK WORKERS UNION VS. CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(KAR)-1996-11-31] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Somnath Iyer, J. - (1.)The petitioner before us was a police constable in the District of Kolar and there was a disciplinary proceeding commenced against him on a charge of indecent behaviour and misconduct towards a married young lady on December 16, 1961. The enquiry into the charge was made by an Inspector of Police who gave him the person hearing enjoined by paragraph 159 of the Mysore Police Manual, Volume 1, the provisions of which, as pointed out by this Court in Nanjundiah v. Inspector General of Police 1964 Mys LJ (supp) 659, governed the police force, to the exclusion of the Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules made by the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The Superintendent of Police, on receipt of the report made by the enquiring authority who was an Inspector of Police imposed a punishment reducing the pay of petitioner from Rs. 66/- to Rs. 65/- for a period of four years from April 1, 1963 so as to affect future increments. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal against the imposition of that punishment as a time-barred appeal.
(2.)The petitioner got himself involved in further trouble by the presentation of a further appeal to the Inspector General of Police who, in the exercise of the power created by paragraph 181(4) of the Police Manual, enhanced the punishment to one of dismissal. The punishment inflicted by the Superintendent of Police and the enhanced punishment imposed by the Inspector General of Police are both called in question in this writ petition.
(3.)There was a two-fold submission made before us by Mr. Jois appearing for the petitioner. The first was that the disciplinary proceeding stood vitiated by the transgression of the rules of natural justice. The second was that the Inspector General of Police had no power to enhance the punishment to one of dismissal.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.