Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) The respondent was a police inspector incharge of police station since 1952. On 14th February 1969 he was posted as second officer at a police station. He made representations against this order but without any success. He thereupon filed a writ petition in this Court.
(2.) A learned single Judge held that as incharge of police station, the respondent was entitled to and was getting a special pay of Rs. 20/- per month. He lost this special pay by reason of his being posted as second officer, removal of the respondent from the office of Incharge Police Station was imposition of punishment mentioned in clause 7(d) Police Act. It was also held that the procedure laid down in Regulation 490 of the Police Regulations was attracted. Imposition of this punishment without following the procedure laid down in regulation 490 of the U. P. Police Regulation was found illegal and it was quashed. Aggrieved, the Dy. Inspector General of Police has come up in appeal.
(3.) Removal from any office of special emolument is specifically mentioned as a punishment in clause (d) of Sec. 7. This could be imposed upon a police officer of the rank held by the respondent. It is not disputed that incharge of a police station is entitled to a special pay of Rs. 20/-per month. This would be nothing else than special emolument within the meaning of Sec. 7(d). the respondent was removed from the post of special emolument when he was discharged from the office of the police station and posted as second officer of a police station. This action was clearly tantamount to imposition of punishment mentioned in clause 7(d) of the Police Act.;