KISHANCHAND KORUMAL Vs. IMDADALI IGP GUJARAT
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Click here to view full judgement.
J.B.MEHTA, N.M.MIABHOY -
(1.) These three Special Civil Applications filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution raise the some questions as to the scope of the revisional powers of the Inspector General of Police under the Bombay Police (Punishments and Appeals) Rules 1956 hereinafter referred to as the rules and as to the validity of these rules. We have therefore heard all these applications together and are disposing them of by this common judgment.
(2.) All the three petitioners were at the relevant time serving as head constables in the Kaira District. Disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against them. They were charge sheeted and after a proper inquiry and the show cause notice which had been issued they were punished by the order of the District Superintendent of Police at Kaira and were reverted to the post of a constable for the period stated in the orders passed against them for the misconduct proved against them in their respective charges. Against the said order the petitioner in the first petition Special Civil Application No. 824/62 had appealed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police Baroda who had confirmed the order of punishment and had dismissed the appeal. The other two petitioners in the other two Special Civil Applications Nos. 967/62 and 61/63 had not filed any appeal against the order of punishment inflicted by the District Superintendent of Police at Kaira. All the three petitioners had undergone the punishment inflicted by the orders passed against them and had been thereafter reinstated in their original post on completion of the period of reversion ordered against them. Thereafter the Inspector General of Police who is the respondent in all these three petitions had issued a show cause notice against each petitioner requiring him to show cause why the punishment should not be enhanced to one of dismissal on the ground that the same was inadequate. The three petitioners have therefore filed the present Special Civil Applications to challenge the impugned show cause notice issued by the Inspector General of Police. The petitioners have contended:-
(1) that such a show cause notice issued by the I.G.P. was not covered by rule 17 conferring revisional powers on the I.G.P.
(2) that rule 17 was in any case ultra vires being inconsistent with secs. 5 25 and 27 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act
(3) that the said rule which conferred revisional powers on the I.G.P. as well as the show cause notice issued by him violated Art. 20 of the Constitution by seeking to inflict double punishment on the petitioners
(4) that the said rule conferring revisional powers was arbitrary and illegal as no time limit was prescribed for taking fresh action. It may be noted that the petitioners had also challenged the impugned notice on the ground of violation of Article 311 of the Constitution but the said ground has not been pressed at the hearing. As the impugned notice had not mentioned the rule in pursuance of which it was issued the petitioners had mentioned in the petitions the old rule 18 according to which the petitioners believed that the notices in question had been issued. That rule corresponds to the present rule 17 and Mr. Desai has contended that he was questioning actually rule 17. In the affidavit in reply which had been filed by the respondent the proposed action has been stated to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rule 17 conferring the revisional powers. The respondent has denied that the rule in question was ultra vires the Act or the Constitution.
(3.) At the hearing Mr. Desai has argued the aforesaid four grounds. We had also heard the other advocates including Mr. Nanavati who were interested in supplementing the arguments in these petitions as they were interested in other allied pending matters.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.