Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (2) TMI 531

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on him. He was however reinstated from February 11, 1985 under the orders of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ajmer for short 'the DIGP' here in after) 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 dt. 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' here in after) vide order dated June 17, 1986 (Ex. 7) partly allowed the appeal and the punishmen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nary Authority envisaged by Rule 15 of the Rules with regard to the petitioner was the Inspector General of Police (for short 'the IGP' here in after) and therefore, DIGP had no authority to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. 7. 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 Rule 2 (c) as under: Rule 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 . 8. Rule 15 lays down as to who will be t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ub Inspector of Police and whether notice issued by the DIGP and proceedings conducted by him were legal, came for consideration before this Court in the case of Fateh Singh Lodha v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1) and it was held as under: The post of Sub-Inspector of Police is included in the Subordinate Services and enumerated in Schedule II annexed to the Rules. According to Rule 15 of the Rules, the Head of the Department or the authority specially empowered by the Head of the Department with the approval of the State Government is entitled to inflict all the penalties specified in Rule 14. The disciplinary authority for the petitioner was, therefore, the Inspector General of Police, who is the Head of the Department. 12. Mr. Pur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... refore, the case of the petitioner is covered by that Circular. According to him Rules can be made retrospectively effective. 17. A distinction is to be drawn between administrative/executive order or circular and the rules framed in exercise of the powers given under some Act. Such rules have statutory force and can be made effective retrospectively or prospectively as the circumstances require, Even rules cannot be effective retrospectively in all cases, as is evident from the following principle enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of the Accountant General and another v. S. Doraiswamy and Ors. [1981]2SCR155 : It is settled law that unless a statute conferring the power to make rules provides for the making of ru .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... clusion would be that the order dated November 11, 1985 (Ex. 6) passed by the DIGP, Ajmer is liable to be set aside. When the initial order itself goes away, the appellate order is bound to go. 24. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The Notification dated June 9, 1986 to the extent of its retrospective effect is quashed. As a result of it the Orders Ex. 6 dated November 11, 1985 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ajmer and Ex. 7 dated June 17, 1986 passed by the Special Inspector General of Police are set aside. It is however made clear that this order will not preclude the State Government from taking any action against the petitioner in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, costs are made easy. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates