W.Broome, J. - (1.) In this reference the Civil and Sessions Judge of Rampur recommends the quashing of proceedings pending against the applicant, Sub-Inspector Asa Ram, in the court of the City Magistrate of Rampur under Section 29 of the Police Act.
(2.) The allegations against the applicant are that while posted as Station Officer of Tanda Police Station he refused to record a report that a certain Rahim Bux wished to lodge about a burglary committed in his shop in the month of December 1955, and similarly while posted as Station Officer of Suar Police Station he refused to record a report of one Gokul Haldia regarding a burglary committed in his house during the month of September 1957. On complaints being made by Rahim Bux and Gokul departmental proceedings were started against the applicant under Section 7 of the Police Act, and on the conclusion of that inquiry he was called upon to show cause why he should not be punished. But instead of submitting a proper reply to this notice the applicant tiled complaints under Section 500, I. P. C. against Rahim Bux and Gokul in the court of the Judicial Officer (1), Rampur, on 31-1-1959. On this the Superintendent of Police of Rampur lodged a complaint against the applicant with the City Magistrate on 23-5-1959, asking for him to be punished under Sec. 29 of the Police Act for breach of Rule 25 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants' Conduct Rules, which runs as follows : "Vindication of acts and character of Government servants--No Government servant shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government, have recourse to any court or to the press for the vindication of any official act which has been the subject-matter of adverse criticism or an attack of defamatory character."
(3.) The first line of argument adopted by learned counsel for the applicant is that breaches of the U. P. Government Servants' Conduct Rules are not punishable under Section 29 of the Police Act, the relevant portion of which runs: "Every police-officer who shall be guilty of any violation of duty or wilful breach or neglect of any rule or regulation or lawful order made by competent authority ........................... shall be liable, on conviction before a Magistrate, to a penalty not exceeding three months' pay, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding three months, or to both," The contention is that the rules "made by competent authority" mentioned in this section mean only the rules made by the Inspector General of Police under Section 12 of the Police Act or by the State Government under Section 46. I can see no justification, however, for interpreting the words used in Section 29 in this narrow restricted fashion. If it had been intended that only the breach of rules made under Sections 12 and 46 of the Act was to be punishable under Section 29, one would have expected the section to use the words "any rule...... made under this Act by competent authority"; but the section merely refers to rules and regulations in general, without restriction, and in the circumstances there seems to be no reason why rules made by a competent authority otherwise than under the Act should not also come within the scope of the section. The case of Banslochan Lal v. Emperor, AIR 1930 Pat 195, cited by the learned Sessions Judge in his referring order, is no authority for the proposition which the applicant steaks to establish: it merely declares that breaches of rules and regulations framed by the Inspector General of Police under Section 12 come within the scope of Section 29 of the Police Act, not that Section 29 is confined to breaches of such rules only. Learned counsel for the applicant has been unable to cite any ruling that supports his interpretation of the section, and I have no hesitation therefore in rejecting his argument. There can be no denying that Rule 25 of the U. P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, which was made by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, is a 'rule made by competent authority'; and consequently I hold that breach of Rule 25 by a police officer is punishable under Section 29 of the Police Act.;