KANTA BHATNAGAR, J. - (1.) PETITIONER Gopi Krishna, initially appointed as Constable on August 15, 1961 was promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the year 1977. On subsequent promotion he was promoted as Sub Inspector of Police and joined his duties on August 17, 1981. Vide order dated March 5, 1984 the Superintendent of Police Nagaur suspended him on May 19, 1934 and ten charge sheets were served under Rules 16 and 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules" hereinafter) upon him. He was however reinstated from February 11, 1985 under the orders of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ajmer (for short 'the DIGP' hereinafter) and was later on transferred from Nagaur to Bhilwara. Inquiries were held in all the charge sheets. In some of them he was exonerated and in some censured or punished. In charge-sheet No. 3961 dated May 19; 1984 inquiry was conducted and petitioner received the communication of the imposition of punishment from the DIGP, Ajmer Range, Ajmer dated November 11,1985 (Ex 6 ). The petitioner preferred an appeal. The Special Inspector General of Police (Hqrs.) (for short 'the SIGP' hereinafter) vide order dated June 17, 1986 (Ex. 7) partly allowed the appeal and the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by the DIGP was substituted by the punishment of reversion to the lower post for a period of five years.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioner has filed the petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Notice at the admission stage was issued to the respondents. Mr. L. S. Udawat, Additional Government Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the nature of the case, the writ petition was heard for final disposal at the admission stage. The action taken against the petitioner in the aforesaid inquiry and the legality and correctness of the orders Exs. 6 and 7 dated November 11, 1985 and June 17, 1986 respectively, have been assailed on a number of grounds such as malafides on the part of Superintendent of Police and the petitioner not being informed whether the inquiry officer had sent any report to the Disciplinary Authority or not. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments to the main point raised in the writ petition i. e. the legality and the correctness of the orders Ex. 6 and 7 dated November 11, 1985 and June 17, 1986 respectively, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the DIGP and SIGP for imposing punishment on the petitioner and hearing the appeal. Mr. B. L. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Disciplinary Authority envisaged by Rule 15 of the Rules with regard to the petitioner was the Inspector General of Police (for short 'the IGP' hereinafter) and therefore, DIGP had no authority to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner.
(3.) RULE 14 of the RULEs provides the nature of the penalty which may be imposed on a Government Servant. It is the Disciplinary Authority who can impose punishment enumerated in that RULE. Disciplinary Authority has been defined in R. 2 (c) as under: "r. 2 (c) "disciplinary Authority" in relation to the imposition of a penalty on a Government Servant means the authority competent under these rules to impose on him that penalty". Rule 15 lays down as to who will be the Disciplinary Authority in respect to a particular Government Servant and the relevant portion reads as under: R. 15. Disciplinary Authority-l (l) "in respect of the State Services the Government or the authority specially empowered by the Government in that behalf, in respect of the Subordinate and Ministerial Services, the Head of Department or the authority specially empowered by the Head of the Department with the approval of the Government and in respect of Class IV Services, the Head of the Office shall be the Disciplinary Authority. " From this rule it is clear that the Head of the Department is the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the Subordinate and Ministerial Services to the former of which cadre the petitioner belongs. The Head of the Department can impose punishment on such Government Servant or the authority specially empowered by the Head of the Department with the approval of the Government can exercise that power. ;