RACHIAH, R. Vs. DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition in which an Ex-Police, Constable of the, Polio Department of the State Government has prayed for quashing the, order of the Superintendent of Police,, Mysore District, imposing penalty of dismissal against him, which order was confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Mysore the following question of law arises for consideration:

(2.) Facts: The petitioner was working as a Police Constable in K. R. Police Station, Mysore. A joint departmental inquiry was instituted against him and the Sub-Inspector of Police by name Mehboob Jan of the, same] Police Station, by an order made by the Superintendent of Police. The Deputy Superintendent of Police was appointed as the enquiry officer. After holding the inquiry, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of two out of four charges framed against him. Accepting thee findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the Superintendent of Police issued a, showcause notice under Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The petitioner furnished his reply to the show-cause notice. Thereafter the Superintendent of Police passed order dated 9-8-1975 (Ext.-C) imposing penalty of dismissal against him. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal. under S. 25 of the Karnataka Police Act to the prescribed' appellate authority, namely, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Mysore. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated. 25-3-1976 (Ext.-E). Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

(3.) Sri B. V. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the inquiry proceedings from its inception are liable to be set aside as the, inquiry was initiated by the Superintendent of Police, who had no authority to institute a joint inquiry in view of R. 8 of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules; 1965. He submitted that though the Superintendent of Police had the competence to institute disciplinary proceedings against Police Constables, as joint enquiry was instituted against him as well as the Sub-Inspector of Police, the, authority competent to institute. disciplinary proceedings and to. name, the disciplinary authority was the authority who was competent to impose penalty of dismissal against the Sub-Inspector of Police. He, pointed out that only the Deputy Inspector General of Police had the competence, under the Rules to impose penalty of dismissal against the Sub-Inspector of Police and, therefore, as a joint enquiry was instituted against the petitioner and the Suq-Inspector of Police, such an enquiry could have been ordered only by the Deputy Inspector General of Police.