9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Authority of the Governor under Section 7 of the Police Act. 2. Violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. 3. Validity of the Tribunal proceedings due to procedural irregularities. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Authority of the Governor under Section 7 of the Police Act: The appellant argued that the Governor lacked the authority to dismiss him from the police force under Section 7 of the Police Act. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Police Act and the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947 (Tribunal Rules). It was concluded that under Police Regulation 479(a), the Governor had the power to dismiss a police officer. The Tribunal Rules, framed under various powers including Section 7 of the Police Act, authorized the Governor to pass appropriate orders concerning police officers. The court noted that the power vested in the Inspector-General of Police and his subordinates by Section 7 of the Police Act was not exclusive and was controlled by the Government of India Act, 1935, and the Constitution, which made the tenure of all civil servants of a Province during the pleasure of the Governor. Therefore, the plea that the Governor had no power to dismiss the appellant was without substance. 2. Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution: The appellant contended that the enquiry by the Tribunal and the subsequent order of dismissal violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the laws. The court acknowledged that two distinct procedures for holding an enquiry were available: one under the Police Regulations and the other under the Tribunal Rules. However, the court noted that the order directing an enquiry against the appellant was passed before the Constitution came into force, and Article 14 does not have retrospective operation. The court further observed that there was no substantial difference between the procedures prescribed by the Police Regulations and the Tribunal Rules. Both sets of rules provided similar opportunities for the accused to defend themselves. The court also noted that the Governor exercised independent judgment in dismissing the appellant and did not merely act on the Tribunal's recommendations. Therefore, the court concluded that no discrimination was practised, and the equal protection clause was not violated. 3. Validity of the Tribunal Proceedings Due to Procedural Irregularities: The appellant raised several procedural irregularities in the Tribunal proceedings, including the denial of representation by counsel, non-consideration of his explanation, refusal to summon certain witnesses, and absence of the assessor during some hearings. The court examined the affidavits and found that the appellant was not represented by a lawyer, but the prosecution was also not conducted by a lawyer. The court also found that the appellant's explanation was duly considered by the Governor, and the appellant had consented to the proceedings continuing in the absence of the assessor. The court concluded that there was no substance in the appellant's claims of procedural irregularities. Separate Judgment by K.C. Das Gupta, J.: Justice K.C. Das Gupta dissented on the main issue of whether the Tribunal Rules violated Article 14 of the Constitution. He argued that the absence of a right of appeal under the Tribunal Rules, while such a right existed under the Police Regulations, resulted in unequal treatment. He noted that the right of appeal is substantial and provides a chance for the appellate authority to take a different view. Therefore, he concluded that the Tribunal Rules, in so far as they did not provide for an appeal against the Governor's decision, were ultra vires the Constitution. He would have allowed the appeal and set aside the order of dismissal. Conclusion: The majority judgment dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the Governor's authority to dismiss the appellant and finding no violation of the equal protection clause or procedural irregularities in the Tribunal proceedings. Justice K.C. Das Gupta dissented, finding the Tribunal Rules in violation of Article 14 due to the lack of an appeal provision. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
