A.L. Bahri, J. - (1.) This regular second appeal is by State of Punjab, the defendant; against the judgment and decree dated Oct. 7, 1983 of Additional District Judge, Faridkot allowing the appeal of Ram Rakha and decreeing his suit for declaration that order dated Feb. 23. 1977 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot dismissing him from service, was illegal, null and void and he was entitled to all the benefits of continuation in service and he was also entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 17,000.00 as pay and allowances from Feb. 23, 1977. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on June 12, 1981.
(2.) For deciding the question in controversy, it is not necessary to give in detail the facts. Suffice it to say that Ram Rakha was appointed as a Constable on Feb. 24, 1963 and he was dismissed from service vide order dated Feb. 23, 1977 passed by S.P. Faridkot. The order was passed after issuing a charge sheet and holding an inquiry. The challenge to the order of dismissal was on the ground that S. P. was not competent authority to dismiss him. It was District Superintendent of police who could dismiss him. Other grounds were also taken. However, findings of the Courts below on other points were against him.
(3.) Under rule 1.8 of the Punjab Police Rules. The Superintendent of Police is the executive head of the district police force and there may be other Superintendents of Police also in the district, such a matter was before the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Jagjit Singh, 1969 SLR 356 . The order of dismissal in that case was passed by Sari Jagan Nath, who was a Superintendent of Police but he was not the District Superintendent of Police. After making reference to section 4 and 7 of the Punjab Police Act and rule 1.8 of the Police Rules, it was observed in para 5 of the judgment as under ; "It is to be noted that the words 'Superintendent of Police' do not occur anywhere in the Act. In the Act this expression is always prefixed by the words 'District' or 'Assistant District." In para 6 of the judgment, it was held as under : "Shri Jagannath was the Superintendent of Police, City and all the police stations of the City were under his charge. It is nobody's case that a Superintendent of Police is an authority inferior to that of a District Superintendent of Police each Magisterial district having in many cases more than one Superintendent of Police. There is thus no incongruity between the Act and the Rules which have to be read together and as Jagannath, Superintendent of Police, was undoubtedly the Superintendent of police of City Delhi with jurisdiction over the police station Faiz Bazar where the plaintiff was posted, he was competent to pass the order of dismissal on him." The matter was also considered by this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Ram Sarup Constable, 1985 (2) SLR, 369 . In this case, the Additional Superintendent of Police had passed the order of dismissal, who was hold to be competent authority and the order was held to be proper. The Delhi High Court in Iqbal Singh, Ex.-Head Constable Police Vs. Inspector General of Police, Delhi and others, 1971 (2) SLR 257 , held the order of dismissal passed by Superintendent of Police to be valid as he was not subordinate to the Senior Superintendent of Police who had appointed the Constable in that case.;