G N NANJUNDIAH Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE IN MYSORE BANGALORE
LAWS(KAR)-1966-9-19
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on September 27,1966

G.N.NANJUNDIAH Appellant
VERSUS
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE IN MYSORE, BANGALORE Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

RACHIAH, R. VS. DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ORS [LAWS(KAR)-1979-6-27] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Somnath Iyer, J. - (1.)The petitioner was a Second Division clerk in the office of the Superintendent of Police in Mysore, and, disciplinary proceedings wore commenced against him by the Superintendent of Police of that district on a charge that he failed to report himself to duty in time. The Deputy Superintendent of Police was authorised to hold the enquiry, and on the basis of his report, the Superintendent of Police dismissed the petitioner.
(2.)The petitioner appealed to the Inspector General of Police, and, the contention urged before him was that the enquiry into the charge should have been made either by the Inspector-General of Police or by an authority specially empowered by him, and, that since the District Superintendent of Police was not the disciplinary authority and so the Deputy Superintendent of police could not have made the enquiry under his authority, the proceedings were void. The Inspector-General of Police upheld the contention that the punishment of dismissal imposed by the District Superintendent of Police was unsustainable, and so he set aside the punishment imposed by him What he next proceeded to do was to issue a notice to the petitioner to show cause why he should not himself dismiss him, and, after hearing the petitioner, he substituted his own punishment of dismissal for the punishment imposed by the District Superintendent of Police.
(3.)Mr. Rama Jois contends that this substitution was in law, impossible, and, we think that he is right. The punishment of dismissal is a major penalty falling within Clause (viii) of Rule 8 of the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and so, the procedure for the imposition of that penalty is what is prescribed by Rule 11 of those rules. Sub-rule (1) of that rule says that no major penalty shall he imposed except after an enquiry in manner provided by that rule The first step in the enquiry to be so held is that prescribed by Sub-rule (2) which directs that a disciplinary authority or an authority specially empowered by it in that behalf, shall frame charges which should be communicated with other enclosures to the concerned Government servant, who should be required to submit his statement of defence in writing. Sub-rule (3) authorises the inspection of relevant official records by the concerned Government servant for the preparation of his defence, although permission for such inspection may be refused if the disciplinary authority or the specially empowered authority is of opinion that the records of which an inspection is sought, are not relevant or public interest forbids such inspection Sub-rule (4) directs an enquiry by the disciplinary authority or the specially empowered authority on receipt of the written statement of defence or where no such statement is produced within the time allowed. Sub-rule (3) regulates the engagement of counsel and Sub-rule (6) directs the recording of evidence. Sub-rule (7) provides for the preparation of a report of enquiry. We are not concerned with the other parts of Rule-11.


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