Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • S.N. Misra
  • Standing Counsel
Judges
  • Jagdish Sahai, J.
Acts
  • provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter called the Rules),
  • Section 243 of the Government of India Act the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India
  • provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules
  • Sub-section (2) of Section 96-B of the Government of India Act of 1919.
  • Sections 240 to 263, that Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 240
  • provisions of the Police Act and the Police Regulations
  • SECTION 243 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT
  • Section 3 of the Indian Railways Aet, 1890. (ii) persons
  • Constitution, the provisions of Rule 55 of the Rules
  • SECTION 240 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT 1935
  • Act and the Police Regulations, Rule 3
  • provisions of the Indian Police Act
  • Section 7 of the Indian Police Act.
  • Rule 477 of the Police Regulations
  • Section 2 of the Indian Police Act.
  • Clause (a) or (c) of Rule 3 the Rules
  • Clause (a) of Rule 3 of the Rules
  • Section 2. Police Act (V of 1861).
  • SECTION 7 POLICE ACT
  • provisions of Rule 46:
  • Rule 55 of the Rules
  • Rule 3 of the Rules
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • S.N. Misra
  • Standing Counsel
Judges
  • Jagdish Sahai, J.
Acts
  • provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter called the Rules),
  • Section 243 of the Government of India Act the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India
  • provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules
  • Sub-section (2) of Section 96-B of the Government of India Act of 1919.
  • Sections 240 to 263, that Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 240
  • provisions of the Police Act and the Police Regulations
  • SECTION 243 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT
  • Section 3 of the Indian Railways Aet, 1890. (ii) persons
  • Constitution, the provisions of Rule 55 of the Rules
  • SECTION 240 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT 1935
  • Act and the Police Regulations, Rule 3
  • provisions of the Indian Police Act
  • Section 7 of the Indian Police Act.
  • Rule 477 of the Police Regulations
  • Section 2 of the Indian Police Act.
  • Clause (a) or (c) of Rule 3 the Rules
  • Clause (a) of Rule 3 of the Rules
  • Section 2. Police Act (V of 1861).
  • SECTION 7 POLICE ACT
  • provisions of Rule 46:
  • Rule 55 of the Rules
  • Rule 3 of the Rules
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Sahai, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner was recruited as a constable in the U.P. police and later promoted to head-constable. In February 1955, while posted at Shahjahanpur, he was suspended (suspension communicated by telephone on 17 February 1955). A charge-sheet under Section 7 of the Indian Police Act was served on 7 April 1955; the petitioner submitted a written reply about 17 April 1955. A departmental trial was conducted under Section 7 of the Indian Police Act by the Superintendent of Police, R. D. Pandey, who recorded findings concluding that dismissal was the only adequate punishment and called upon the petitioner to show cause.

The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice (around 19 July 1955) but was dismissed by the Superintendent of Police on 2 August 1955. He appealed to the Deputy Inspector General in November 1955; the DIG rejected the appeal by order dated 6 March 1956. A subsequent petition to the Inspector General of Police was rejected on 29 October 1956. The petitioner obtained certified copies on 15 February 1957 and then filed the present petition in this Court.

The State's counter-affidavit (sworn by Circle Inspector Girraj Singh) sets out the factual basis: a complaint by one Radhey Lal that the petitioner and two other head-constables entered his house "for immoral purposes" on the night between 16 and 17 February 1955; the petitioner was found sleeping in Radhey Lal's house in a drunken state and examined by a medical officer who reported him under the influence of liquor. A preliminary inquiry was held by CI Girraj Singh and, on its basis, Section 7 proceedings were initiated and charges framed.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the departmental proceedings under Section 7 of the Indian Police Act were without jurisdiction because no First Information Report (FIR) was recorded and no criminal case registered (i.e., whether absence of an FIR precluded departmental action).
  2. Whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to show cause and to defend himself in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution (specifically, whether he was not allowed to lead evidence in defence or cross-examine prosecution witnesses).
  3. Whether Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules applies to the petitioner (i.e., whether civil service procedural protections in Rule 55 should govern) and, relatedly, whether the Police Regulations (Chapter XXXII) are ultra vires or discriminatory compared to the Rules.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The charges against him amounted to a cognizable criminal offence (lurking house-trespass by night) and, therefore, departmental proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act were without jurisdiction in the absence of a recorded FIR and registered criminal case.
  • He was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause because he was not allowed to lead evidence in his defence (allegation of denial of opportunity to cross-examine and to produce defence witnesses).
  • Later added grounds: Rule 55 of the Civil Services Rules applies to his case; the Police Regulations are ultra vires and permit discriminatory application (a Superintendent may apply more onerous Police Regulations to one member while applying the more generous Civil Services Rules to another).

Respondent's (State's) Contentions

  • The factual basis for proceedings: Radhey Lal complained that the petitioner and two others entered his house for immoral purposes; petitioner was found asleep under the influence of liquor in Radhey Lal's house; medical officer confirmed intoxication; petitioner was suspended and a preliminary inquiry was held by CI Girraj Singh.
  • The departmental trial was conducted by the Superintendent of Police (not by CI Girraj Singh). The SP recorded statements of prosecution and defence witnesses and the petitioner had full opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and to produce his defence.
  • The petitioner initially produced a list of 17 defence witnesses, examined 10 and gave up the rest. The petitioner also signed an oral statement on 29 June 1955 stating he had "no complaints to make regarding the conduct of the departmental proceedings," had been given full opportunity to cross-examine and to produce his defence, and had "no more defence to offer," which the respondents relied upon to show adequacy of the trial procedure.
  • With respect to applicability of Rule 55 and discrimination arguments, the State relied on the language of Section 7 of the Indian Police Act and Rule 477 of the U.P. Police Regulations to show that Police Regulations apply to officers appointed under Section 2 of the Police Act and that the Civil Services Rules do not apply to subordinate police where conditions of service are specially provided by statute or rules made under the statute.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
North-West Frontier Province v. Suraj Narain Anand, AIR 1949 PC 112 (Privy Council) Interpretation that "conditions of service" include provisions prescribing circumstances under which an employer may terminate service; analysis of scope of Section 243 (Govt. of India Act) vis-à-vis Section 240 and related provisions. The court relied on the Privy Council's view to conclude that, with the repeal of Section 243 of the Government of India Act, the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution (a substitute for Section 240) are applicable to subordinate police. The precedent supported the proposition that conditions of service (including dismissal procedures) can be specially provided by statute and thus bring subordinate police within specific statutory/regulatory regimes rather than the general Civil Services Rules.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in discrete steps, each tied to material in the record:

  1. Fact-finding and adequacy of procedure: The court reviewed the complaint of Radhey Lal, the preliminary inquiry by CI Girraj Singh, the medical officer's report that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor, the suspension order dated 17-2-1955, service of the charge-sheet on 7-4-1955, and the conduct of the departmental trial. The counter-affidavit asserted the SP conducted the trial, recorded prosecution and defence witness statements, and afforded opportunities for cross-examination.
  2. Admission by the petitioner: The court emphasized the petitioner's signed oral statement dated 29-6-1955 in which the petitioner stated he had "no complaints to make regarding the conduct of the departmental proceedings," that he had been given full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to produce his defence, and that he had "no more defence to offer." On this basis the court treated the present allegations of denial of opportunity as afterthoughts.
  3. Conclusion on Article 311(2): Accepting the counter-affidavit and the petitioner's own signed statement, the court held that the petitioner had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause as required by Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
  4. On the FIR/criminal-prosecution point: The court noted that the petitioner had not pleaded or averred in his petition or supporting affidavit that no FIR had been lodged or that no criminal case was registered. Because the allegation had not been made in the petition or affidavit, the respondents had no opportunity to contradict it in the counter-affidavit; consequently, the court held that the petitioner had not laid the necessary foundation to raise this ground and that it was not substantiated.
  5. Applicability of Civil Services Rules (Rule 55) and constitutionality/discrimination of Police Regulations:
    • The court analyzed Section 7 of the Indian Police Act, noting its opening words "Subject to such rules as the State Government may from time to time make under this Act," which, the court found, indicate that rules applicable to police personnel are those framed under the Police Act.
    • The court cited U.P. Police Regulations, Chapter XXXII, and Rule 477 which expressly states that the rules in that chapter "have been made under Section 7 of the Police Act" and apply to officers appointed under Section 2 of the Police Act. This showed that dismissal and punishment procedures for subordinate police are provided by the Police Act and Regulations.
    • The court examined Rule 3 (and its Clause (a)) of the Civil Services Rules, which excludes from their application "persons for whom appointment and conditions of employment special provision is made by or under any law for the time being in force." The court reasoned that the proviso to Rule 3, which makes the Rules applicable in respect of matters not covered by special provisions, did not help the petitioner because the Police Act and Police Regulations "fully cover the question of the petitioner's dismissal."
    • The court relied on the Privy Council decision (Suraj Narain Anand) to interpret the statutory landscape concerning "conditions of service" and to conclude that Article 311 is applicable to subordinate police; however, that conclusion did not make the Civil Services Rules applicable where a special statute and rules under it regulate conditions of service.
    • Accordingly, the court concluded the Civil Services Rules (including Rule 55) do not apply to the petitioner's case, and the Police Regulations cannot be struck down as discriminatory on the ground that they are more onerous than the Civil Services Rules, since the Civil Services Rules do not apply to that class of persons.

Holding and Implications

Holding (core rulings emphasized):

  • The departmental trial complied with the requirements of Article 311(2); the petitioner had a reasonable opportunity to show cause and to defend himself.
  • The petitioner's allegation that no FIR was lodged or no criminal case registered was not pleaded in his petition or affidavit and therefore was not substantiated.
  • Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules does not apply to the petitioner's case; the Police Act and the Police Regulations (Chapter XXXII) govern the conditions of service and disciplinary procedure for subordinate police.
  • The Police Regulations in Chapter XXXII are not discriminatory on the ground that they are more onerous than the Civil Services Rules, because the latter do not apply to the class of subordinate police to whom the Police Regulations apply.

Implications:

  • Direct effect on the parties: The court accepted the State's account of procedural regularity and rejected the petitioner's principal grounds as unsubstantiated or contradicted by his own signed statement; consequently, the petitioner could not succeed on the asserted procedural defects identified in the petition.
  • Broader legal implication: The court applied the Privy Council's reasoning in Suraj Narain Anand to treat Article 311 as applicable to subordinate police, while also holding that where a special statute and rules (Police Act and Police Regulations) fully govern conditions of service, the general Civil Services Rules do not supplant those special provisions. The opinion does not purport to create a novel precedent beyond applying existing authorities and statutory text.

Note: This summary is drawn exclusively from the text of the provided opinion and does not add information beyond that opinion.

Show full summary ...

    Mukhtar Singh v. State

    Sahai, J.

    1. The petitioner was originally recruited as a constable in the U. P. police force but was later on promoted to be a head-constable after having completed the necessary training. In February 1955 he was posted in Shahjahanpur and on the 17th of that month he received an order of suspension. The suspension order was communicated to him telcphonically by the Kotwal, Shahja-hanpur. On the 7th of April 1955 a charge sheet was served upon him. He submitted his reply to the charges on or about the 17th of April 1955. The petitioner was departmentally tried under Section 7 of the Indian Police Act. Sri R. D. Pandey, Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur., recorded findings-against the petitioner, the concluding portion of which runs as follows :--

    "In view of the seriousness of the charge and the fact that it has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt and the bad record of service and the fact that all sorts of punishments have had no effect on the party charged to reform him I feel that he is a thoroughly undesirable type incapable of reform. He is the type that brings a bad name to the police force and is responsible tor spoiling police and public relations. He is a slur on the force and a bad example to his subordinates and colleagues.

    In view of the above I find that no punishment less than dismissal from the Force will serve the ends of justice. I, therefore, call upon the party charged, H. C. Mukhtar Singh. to show cause within 10 days of the receipt of this finding why he should not be dismissed from the Force.

    A copy of this finding will be handed over to H. C. Mukhtar Singh, the party charged, free of cost.

    Sd. R. D, Pandey IPS.

    Superintendent of Police Shahjahanpur, 10-7-55."

    2. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice mentioned above on or about the 19th July 1955 and on 2nd of August 1955 he was dismissed by the Superintendent of Police. He filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police in November 1955. The D. I. G. rejected the appeal by his order dated 6th of March 1956, Thereafter the petitioner filed a petition before the Inspector General of Police who rejected the same on 29th of October 1956. The petitioner thereafter applied for certified copies of the various orders which he received on the 15th of February 1957. Thereafter the present petition was filed in this Court.

    The grounds taken in the petition are that the charges levelled against the petitioner amounted to the cognizable offence of lurking housetrespass by alight and the proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act were wholly without jurisdiction because no first information report was recorded against the petitioner and a case was not registered against him and that the petitioner had not a reasonable opportunity of showing cause because he was not allowed to lead evidence in defence.

    Mr. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, later on made an application tor adding some grounds which are to the effect that the provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules are applicable to his case and inasmuch as the same were not applied in his case there has been no proper enquiry and in any case the provisions of the Police Regulations are ultra vires inasmuch as it is open to a Superintendent of Police to discriminate between two members of the police force by applying in the case of one the provisions of the Police Regulations, which are more onerous than the provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter called the Rules), and by applying in the case of the other the provisions of the Rules which are more generous.

    3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State which has been sworn by Sri Girraj Singh, Circle Inspector. It is in the counter-affidavit that on the night between 16th and 17th February, 1955, one Radhey Lal reported to Sri Aisar Hussain, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shahja-hanpur, at about 10 p.m. that the petitioner and two other head-constables Rajendra Behari and Basdco Singh had entered his house for immoral purposes while he was sleeping with his wife, and that the two head-constables had since run away while the petitioner was still lying on the cot in drunken state inside the house which he (Radhey Lal) had: bolted from outside.

    The Deputy Superintendent of Police sent Radhey Lal to C. L Girraj Singh the deponent of the counter-affidavit who went to the house of Radhey Lal and found the petitioner sleeping under the influence of liquor on the cot of Radhey Lal. The petitioner was examined by the medical officer in charge of Shahjahanpur hospital who reported that he was found under the influence of liquor. When this fact was brought to the notice of the Superintendent of Police he suspended the petitioner on 17-2-1955. The Superintendent of Police asked C. I. Girraj Singh to hold an enquiry and report which the latter did, "and on a perusal of the report the Superintendent of Police started Section 7, Police Act proceedings against the petitioner and framed charges against him which were delivered to him (the petitioner) on 7tn April 1955.

    The charge was read out and explained to the petitioner and thereafter the Superintendent of Police put certain questions. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge on 17th April 1955, The petitioner's allegation that the departmental trial against him was conducted by C. I. Girraj Singh has been controverted in the counter-affidavit and it is stated that C. I. Girraj Singh only conducted the preliminary enquiry but the departmental trial was conducted by the Superintendent of Police himself who recorded the statements of the prosecution and the defence witnesses. From the counter-affidavit it appears that the petitioner had full opportunity of cross-examining such witnesses as were examined by the prosecution. So far as the defence is concerned it is stated in the counter-affidavit that originally the petitioner had submitted a list of 17 witnesses out of whom he examined 10 witnesses and gave up the others. On 29-6-1955 the petitioner made the following oral statement before the Superintendent of Police.

    I have no complaints to make regarding the conduct of the departmental proceedings against me. I have been given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to produce the defence. I have no more defence to offer, Sd/- M. Singh Sd. R.D. Pandey, S. P. 29/6/--

    4. The petitioner's allegation that he was not given an opportunity of cross-examining prosecution witnesses and producing defence has been controverted. In his oral statement before the Superintendent of Police on 26-9-1955 which has been referred to above the petitioner definitely admitted that he had no complaints to make regarding the conduct of departmental proceedings and that he had full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to produce defence. He also stated that he had no more defence to offer. This statement was signed by the petitioner.

    I believe the counter-affidavit filed by C I. Girraj Singh, and hold that there was no defect in the conduct of the departmental trial and the petitioner had full opportunity not only of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses but of producing such defence as he liked. It is obvious that the allegations now made by him are clear afterthought as is evidenced by the statement of the petitioner himself made on 29-6-1955 which has been referred to above. I therefore hold that the petitioner had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause as required by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

    5. Though the petitioner has taken a ground that no first information report was lodged against him and no case was registered against him under Chapter 14 there is no averment to that effect either in the petition or in the affidavit filed in support of it. Since this allegation was not made the respondents had no opportunity of getting it contradicted in the counter-affidavit. Inasmuch as the petitioner has not laid any foundation for this ground in the form of allegations either in the petition or in the affidavit filed in support of it, there is no material on which the petitioner can be allowed to raise this ground (ground No. 1 of the petition). I therefore hold that even this ground has not been substantiated.

    6. We therefore come now to the grounds which have been raised by means of a supplementary application i.e., the grounds relating to the applicability of Rule 55 of the Rules to the petitioner's case and to the constitutionality of the Police Regulations. It is true that a piovision analogous to Section 243 of the Government of India Act 1935, does not find place in our Constitution. Section 243 of the Government of India Act runs as follows:

    "Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this chapter, the conditions ot service of the subordinate ranks of the various police forces in India shall be such as may be determined by or under the Acts relating to those forces respectively.'' It is contended that the only bar to the applicability of Rule 55 of the Rules to the case of the petitioner and other members of the police force was Section 243 of the Government of India Act and inasmuch as the same has been replaced and no analogous provision has found it way into the Constitution, the provisions of Rule 55 of the Rules should apply to the petitioner's case. In my opinion the only effect of Section 243 of the Government of India Act, 1935, was to make the provisions of Section 240 of the said Act non-applicable to the subordinate ranks of the police forces in India. The matter came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of North-West Frontier Province v, Suraj Narain Anand, AIR 1949 PC 112. Their Lordships expressed themselves in the following words :--

    "On the first question, apart from consideration whether the context indicates a special significance to the expression 'conditions of service', their Lordships are unable, in the absence of any such special significance, to regard provisions which prescribe the circumstances under which the employer is to be entitled to terminate the service as otherwise than conditions of the service, whether these provisions are contractual or statutory: they are therefore of opinion that the natural meaning of the expression would include such provisions. In the second place, it will be found, on a perusal of Chap. II, which includes Sections 240 to 263, that Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 240 are the only provisions ot Chap. II to which the introductory words oT'S. 243 can be referable in relation to conditions of services, as every one of the other provisions of the chapter, with one exception deals with special classes of service, just as Section 243 deals with special class."

    The result therefore is that with the repeal of Section 243 of the Government of India Act the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India which is a substitute for Section 240 of the Government of India Act, 1935, are made applicable to the case of members of the subordinate police force including the petitioner. To my mind there has been no other effect of the repeal of Section 243 of the Government of India Act, 1935. The reason why to my mind the provisions of the Rules do not apply to the petitioner's case is to be found in the language of Section 7 of the Indian Police Act. The said section runs as follows :--

    "7. Appointment, dismissal, etc., of inferior officers--Subject to such rules as the State Government may from time to time make under this Act, the Inspector-General, Deputy Inspectors-General, Assistant Inspector-General and District Superintendents of Police may at any time dismiss suspend or reduce any police officer of the subordinate ranks whom they shall think remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty, or unfit for the same;

    or may award any one or more of the following punishments to 'any police-officer of the subordinate ranks who shall discharge his duty in a careless or negligent manner, or who, by any act of his own shall render himself unfit for the discharge thereof, namely :--

    (a) fine to any amount not exceeding one month's pay;

    (b) confinement to quarters for a term not exceeding fifteen days, with or without punishment drill, extra guard, fatigue or other duty;

    (c) deprivation of good-conduct pay;

    (d) removal from any office of distinction or special emolument,'' The opening words of the section, i.e., "subject to such rules as the State Government may from time to time make under this Act" clearly indicate that the rules that will be applicable to the case of the police personnel are the rules framed under the Police Act. The words "such rules.....under this Act'' are very significant". The provisions of Chapter XXXII of the U. P. Police Regulations have been made under Section 7 of the Police Act as is clearly shown by Rule 477 of the Police Regulations which runs as follows :--

    477. The rules in this chapter have been made under Section 7 of the Police Act (V of 1861) and apply only to officers appointed under Section 2. Police Act (V of 1861). No officer appointed under that Section shall be punished by executive order otherwise than in the manner provided in this chapter, The punishment of gazetted officers is regulated by the conditions of their agreements with the Secretary of State and by rules made by the Secre-tary of State in Council under Sub-section (2) of Section 96-B of the Government of India Act of 1919. The rules for the punishment of the clerical staff are given in the Office Manual; those for the punishment of village chaukidars in Chapter IX of these regulations.

    There is nothing in the provisions of the Rules which makes them applicable to the members of the subordinate police force. On the contrary Clause (a) of Rule 3 of the Rules clearly provides that the Rules will not be applicable to

    "persons for whom, appointment and conditions of employment special provision is made by or under any law for the time being in force."
    So far as the members of the subordinate police force are concerned they are employed under the provisions of the Indian Police Act and. their conditions of service have also been provided for under that Act and the Police Regulations, Rule 3 of the Rufes runs as follows:

    "3. These rules shall apply to every person in the whole-time civil employment of a Government iu India (other than a person so employed only occasionally or subject to discharge at less than one month's notice) except-

    (a) persons for whosc appointment and conditions of employment special provision is made by or under any law for the time being in force;

    (b) (i) railwav servants as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Railways Aet, 1890.

    (ii) persons holding posts in the Railway Board who are subject to the Railway Services (Classification. Control and Appeal) Rules, and

    (iii) other persons holding posts under the administrative control of the Railway Board or of the Financial Commissioner of Railways;

    (c) Persons in respect of whose conditions of service, pay and allowances, pension, discipline and conduct or any of them special provision has been made by agreement entered into before these rules were made or entered into thereafter in pursuance of the provisions of Rule 46:

    Provided that in respect of any matter not covered by the provisions special to him, his service or his post, these rules shall apply to any person coming within the scope of exceptions (a) or (c) above to whom but for these exceptions the rules would otherwise apply;

    Provided also that these rules shall apply to any person temporarily transferred to a service or post coming within exception (b) to whom, but for such transfer, these rules would otherwise apply."

    It is true that proviso 1 mentioned above provides that even to the case of a government servant whose case falls within Clause (a) or (c) of Rule 3 the Rules shall be applicable in respect of matters which are not covered by special provisions. The proviso would not, however, be applicable to the case of the petitioner because the provisions of the Police Act and the Police Regulations fully cover the question of the petitioner's dismissal. It was held by the Privy Council in the case of Suraj Narain Anand. AIR 1949 PC 112 (referred to above) that the expression "conditions of service" include the provisions which prescribes the circumstances under which the employer is entitled to terminate the services of the employee, and it appears to me that the conditions of the petitioner's employment which include the conditions or provisions for his dismissal have been specially provided for by the Police Act and the Police Regulations and, therefore, the proviso to Rule 3 of the Rules cannot apply because the proviso can only apply if there is no provision in the special Act or the special rules.

    I am therefore of the opinion that the Rules do not apply to the petitioner's case. If they do not apply to his case there is no question ot the Police Regulations being discriminatory. The provisions of Ch. XXXII of the Police Regulations apply to all the officers appointed under Section 2 of the Indian Police Act. In other words, they apply to a whole class. The law-making authority can always make a special provision for a special class. There is no scope for discrimination in those rules nor can they be held to be discriminatory on the ground that they arc more onerous than the Rules because the latter do not apply to officers to whom the former applied. The rules mentioned in Ch. XXXI of the Police Regulations are therefore not discriminatory.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Mukhtar Singh v. State
    (Nov 3, 1958)