D.S. Tewatia, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners who are Constables were convicted under Section 376, Indian Penal Code, for committing rape on a minor girl, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, - -vide his judgment dated 3rd August, 1977, and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 100 each. They preferred an appeal in the High Court against the conviction and sentence and when the appeal was still pending, the Senior Superintendent of Police, who was the appointing authority, dismissed them from service, - -vide order dated 3rd October, 1977. This order was, however, set aside by the Deputy Inspector -General of Police, - -vide his order dated 22nd November, 1978, but instead he placed them under suspension. On 11th June, 1979, Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, was amended by virtue of which the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district dismissed the Petitioners by his order dated 10th July, 1979. These dismissal orders are impugned in the present writ petition, inter alia, on the grounds (i) that the amended Rule 16.2 was bad as it violated the provisions of Section 82 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in that it sought to change the conditions of service of the Petitioners without permission of the Central Government as envisaged under Section 82 of the Act; (ii) that, in any case, the amended rule was prospective in character and not retrospective; (iii) that, in case it is held to be retrospective in character, then to that extent it would be bad as the Governor would not be competent to make a rule operative retrospectively in exercise of powers under Section 7 of the Punjab Police Act, 1861; and (iv) that the order dated 10th July, 1979, passed by the Superintendent Police concerned amounted to reviewing of the order passed by his superior, viz., the Deputy Inspector -General, dated 22nd November, 1978. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the Petitioners, it is necessary to take notice of the relevant provisions of Rule 16.2, in its unamended form as well as in the amended form. JUDGEMENT_61_LAWS(P&H)4_1986.htm
(2.) A perusal of the unamended Rule 16.2 would show that so far as the police employee who had been judicially convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term, inter alia, exceeding one month or to a punishment not less severe had to be dismissed if his appeal against the conviction had not been set aside in appeal or revision by the superior court, as the case may be. (3) The change that, has now been effected by the amended Rule 16.2 is that once an employee governed by the Police Rules is convicted by a Criminal Court, whatever be the sentence, he has to be dismissed from service. It is, however, provided that in the event of his conviction being set aside by the appellate or the revisional court, the authority which is empowered to appoint would review the order of dismissal keeping in view the instructions issued by the Government. That means that under unamended rule, the order of dismissal had to be passed after the appeal or revision against the order of conviction had been decided, and the appellate or the revisional court had not set aside the order of conviction or the limitation for filing appeal or revision had expired, while under the amended provisions, the competent authority is not required to wait for the aforesaid eventualities but has to pass the order of dismissal in the wake of the conviction, and is authorised to review the said order in the event of the conviction order being set aside by the appellate or the revisional authority. 4. The aforesaid amendment in Rule 16.2 by virtue of the change effected, does not in any way affect the conditions of service of a police employee. So, the question of prior permission of the Central Government before effecting the amendment, as envisaged by Section 82 of the Act, does not arise. 5. Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules is a procedural one which are always retrospective in nature unless expressly made prospective. 6. As to the effect of the order of the Deputy Inspector -General dated 22nd November, 1978, setting aside the earlier dismissal order dated 3rd October, 1977, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, it may be observed that the same, viz., the earlier order dated 3rd October, 1977, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police was clearly illegal as it had been passed in violation of the provisions of unamended Rule 16.2 of the Police Rules because under the unamended Police Rules 16.2, as already observed, the orders of dismissal have to await the decision of the appeal or the revision, but the Senior Superintendent of Police passed the order of dismissal during the pendency of the appeal. It was, therefore, rightly set aside by the Deputy Inspector -General of Police by his order dated 22nd November, 1978. The impugned order dated 11th June, 1979 has been passed by the competent authority under Rule 16.2 as amended, which provision makes it mandatory to pass an order of dismissal in the event of conviction of the employee concerned. This order cannot be said to' be an order of review of the orders of the D.I.G., dated 22nd November, 1978. 7. For the reasons afore -mentioned I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same. No costs.;