# [1961] 2 S.C.R. 672

- **Citation:** [1961] 2 S.C.R. 672
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 270 of 1959
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, A. K. Sarkar, K. Subba Rao, K. N. W Anchoo, J. R. Mudholkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1961-2-s-c-r-672-2023
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Public Servant-Complaint of taking bribes against Police
Officer-Magisterial enquiry into coinplaints-Departmental trialValidity of-Police Act, 1861 (V of 1861), s. 7-U. P. Police
Regulations, paras. 486, 489.
The respondent was posted as officer incharge of a police
station when complaints were received by the District Magistrate that the respondent was receiving bribes. The District
Magistrate got an enquiry made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and forwarded the report toghether with his own endorsement to the Superintendent of Police. The respondent was
forced to go on 2 months leave and was reverted to his substantive post of Head Constable, but later he was promoted to the
rank of officiating Sub-Inspector and posted at another police
station. Meanwhile on further complaints an investigation was
made and it was reported that the respondent was a habitual
bribe taker. He was charged under s. 7 Police Act for g charges
of bribery and after departmental trial was dismissed by the
Superintendent of Police. He filed a Writ Petition before the High
Court challenging the order of dismissal inter alia on the ground
that the offences charged being cognizable offences the Superintendent of Police had no jurisdiction to hold the departmental
trial without first complying with the provisions of para. 486(1)
of the U. P. Police Regulations. The High Court accepted this
contention and quashed the order of dismissal.
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
673
Held (per Sarkar, Subba Rao and Mudholkar, JJ.) that the
z960
subject matter of the magisterial enquiry and of. the departmental trial was substantially the same and that the depart- The State of Utlar
mental trial was validly held. The fact that there was an inter- Pradesh & Others
regnum between the magisterial enquiry and the departmental
v.
trial did not affect the questio.n.
Paragraph 486 did not apply Ajodhya Prasad
to a case where a magisterial enquiry was ordered and a police
officer could be departmentally tried under s. 7 Police Act after
such magisterial enquiry ..
Per Gajendragadkar and Wanchoo, JJ.-Thc provisions of
para. 486 were merely directory and even if there was noncompliance therewith the order of dismissal was not invalidated.
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 270 of 1959.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated December 23, 1957, of the Allahabad
High Court (Lucknow Bench) at Lucknow in Civil
Miscellaneous Application (0. J.) No. 86 of 1954.
0. B. Aggarwala, G. 0. Mathur and 0. P. Lal, for
the appellants.
Achhru Ram, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji,
Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondent.
1960. November, 25.
The Judgment of Sarkar,
Subba Rao and Mudholkar, JJ., was delivered by
Subba Rao, J., and that of Gajendragadkar and Wanchoo, JJ., was delivered by Wanchoo, J.
SUBBA RAO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave
Subba Rao f.
against the judgment and order of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, allowing
the petition filed by the respondent under Art. 226 of
the Constitution.
The facts are in a small compass and may be briefly
stated. Ip. the year 1933 the respondent was appointed a constable in U. P. Police Force; on December 1,
1945, he was promoted to the rank of head constable
and in May, 1952 he was posted as officer incharge of
Police Station, Intiathok, District G:onda.
Complaints
were received by the District Magistrate, Gonda, to the
effect that the respondent was receiving bribes in the
discharge of his duties. On September 16, 1952, the
District Magistrate, Gonda, directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to make an enquiry in respect of the
674
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961)
I96o
said complaints. On November 3, 1952, the Sub-Divi-
--1
sional Magistrate, after making the necessary enquiTh• Slat• o Uttar •
b "tt d
t t
h
D"
.
M .
P.adesh & Others rres, su mr . e
a repor
o t e
rstrwt
agrstrate
v. ·
recommendmg the transfer of the respondent to some
Ajodhya P.asad other station. On November 17, 1952,

## Text

672
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
that the mustard oil in the wagon which will be otherwise presumed to be stored for sale by the appellants,
Ai /s. Madan
Mohan Damma was not stored for sale.
Mal Ltd.
We are therefore of opinion that the conviction of
& Another
the appellants of the offence under s. 462 of the Act
v.
is correct. The appeal therefore stands dismissed.
The State of West
Bengal &- Another
Raghubar
Dayal ].
z960
November z 5.
Appeal dismissed.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH &
OTHERS
v:
AJODHYA PRASAD
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR,
K. SUBBA RAO, K. N. W ANCHOO and
J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Public Servant-Complaint of taking bribes against Police
Officer-Magisterial enquiry into coinplaints-Departmental trialValidity of-Police Act, 1861 (V of 1861), s. 7-U. P. Police
Regulations, paras. 486, 489.
The respondent was posted as officer incharge of a police
station when complaints were received by the District Magistrate that the respondent was receiving bribes. The District
Magistrate got an enquiry made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and forwarded the report toghether with his own endorsement to the Superintendent of Police. The respondent was
forced to go on 2 months leave and was reverted to his substantive post of Head Constable, but later he was promoted to the
rank of officiating Sub-Inspector and posted at another police
station. Meanwhile on further complaints an investigation was
made and it was reported that the respondent was a habitual
bribe taker. He was charged under s. 7 Police Act for g charges
of bribery and after departmental trial was dismissed by the
Superintendent of Police. He filed a Writ Petition before the High
Court challenging the order of dismissal inter alia on the ground
that the offences charged being cognizable offences the Superintendent of Police had no jurisdiction to hold the departmental
trial without first complying with the provisions of para. 486(1)
of the U. P. Police Regulations. The High Court accepted this
contention and quashed the order of dismissal.
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
673
Held (per Sarkar, Subba Rao and Mudholkar, JJ.) that the
z960
subject matter of the magisterial enquiry and of. the departmental trial was substantially the same and that the depart- The State of Utlar
mental trial was validly held. The fact that there was an inter- Pradesh & Others
regnum between the magisterial enquiry and the departmental
v.
trial did not affect the questio.n.
Paragraph 486 did not apply Ajodhya Prasad
to a case where a magisterial enquiry was ordered and a police
officer could be departmentally tried under s. 7 Police Act after
such magisterial enquiry ..
Per Gajendragadkar and Wanchoo, JJ.-Thc provisions of
para. 486 were merely directory and even if there was noncompliance therewith the order of dismissal was not invalidated.
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 270 of 1959.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated December 23, 1957, of the Allahabad
High Court (Lucknow Bench) at Lucknow in Civil
Miscellaneous Application (0. J.) No. 86 of 1954.
0. B. Aggarwala, G. 0. Mathur and 0. P. Lal, for
the appellants.
Achhru Ram, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji,
Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondent.
1960. November, 25.
The Judgment of Sarkar,
Subba Rao and Mudholkar, JJ., was delivered by
Subba Rao, J., and that of Gajendragadkar and Wanchoo, JJ., was delivered by Wanchoo, J.
SUBBA RAO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave
Subba Rao f.
against the judgment and order of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, allowing
the petition filed by the respondent under Art. 226 of
the Constitution.
The facts are in a small compass and may be briefly
stated. Ip. the year 1933 the respondent was appointed a constable in U. P. Police Force; on December 1,
1945, he was promoted to the rank of head constable
and in May, 1952 he was posted as officer incharge of
Police Station, Intiathok, District G:onda.
Complaints
were received by the District Magistrate, Gonda, to the
effect that the respondent was receiving bribes in the
discharge of his duties. On September 16, 1952, the
District Magistrate, Gonda, directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to make an enquiry in respect of the
674
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961)
I96o
said complaints. On November 3, 1952, the Sub-Divi-
--1
sional Magistrate, after making the necessary enquiTh• Slat• o Uttar •
b "tt d
t t
h
D"
.
M .
P.adesh & Others rres, su mr . e
a repor
o t e
rstrwt
agrstrate
v. ·
recommendmg the transfer of the respondent to some
Ajodhya P.asad other station. On November 17, 1952, the District
Magistrate sent an endorsement to the Superintendent
Subba Rao J · of Police to the effect that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had found substantial complaints against the· integrity of the respondent, that he had also received such
complaints and that his general reputation for integrity was not good, but that his transfer should, however, come after sometime and that in the meantime
his work might be closely watched. On being called
upon by the Superintendent of Police to submit an
explanation for his conduct, the respondent submitted
his explanation on November 29, 1952. On December 17, 1952, the respondent was forced to go on leave
for two months. Before the expiry of his leave, he
was reverted to his substantive post of head constable
and transferred to Sitapur. On February 17, 1953, he
was promoted to the rank of officiating Sub-Inspector
and posted as Station Officer at Sidholi. On ]'ebruary 27, 1953, the Superintendent of Police made the
following endorsement in his character roll:
"A strong officer with plenty of push in him and
met with a strong opposition in this new charge.
Crime control was very good but complaints of corruption were received which could not be substantiated.
Integrity certified."·
Meanwhile on further . complaints, the C.I.D. probed
the matter further and on July 26, 1953, the Superintendent of Police, Investigation
Branch, C.I.D.,
reported that the respondent was a habitual bribetaker. On July 28, 1953, he was placed under suspension and on August 18, 1953, he was charged under
s. 7 of the Police Act with remissness in the discharge of
his duty and unfitness for the same inasmuch as while
posted as a Station Officer, Police Station, Intiathok,
he had been guilty of dishonesty, corruption and misbehaviour in that he had on nine occasions, particulars
of which were given in the charge, accepted bribes.
It may be mentioned that the magisterial inquiry
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
675
related to seven of the nine charges alleged against
1960
the respondent. The trial was conducted by the Th 51 -, - 1 Utt
Superintendent of Police and the respondent submitted Pr:d•s~ •; Othe::
his explanation on September 12, 1953. The Superinv.
tendent of Police, who conducted the trial, examined Ajodhya Prasad
many witnesses and found that seven out of the nine
charges had been established. Thereafter he issued a
Subba Rao J.
notice to the respondent calling upon him to show
cause why he should not be dismissed from the police
force.
On February 20, 1954, the respondent submitted his explanation and the Superintendent of
Police, by his order dated February 22, 1954, dismissed
the respon~ent from service with effect from the said
date. The appeal preferred by the respondent to the
Deputy Inspector General of Police was dismissed by
his order dated June 2, 1954. Thereafter the respondent on August 5, 1954, filed a petition under Art. 226
of the Constitution before the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, for quashing the order
of dismissal.
.
Before the High Court three points were raised,
namely, (1) as the petitioner was officiating as Sublnspector of Police at the time of the departmental
trial the Suprintendent of Police had no power to dismiss him, since an order in such circumstances could
only be made by a police officer senior in rank to a
Superintendent; (2) the trial was vitiated by a number
of serious irregularities; and (3) the specific acts with
which the petitioner was charged were cognizable
offences and, therefore, the Superintendent of Police
had no jurisdiction to proceed with a departmental
trial without complying with the provisions of subparagraph (1) of para. 486 of the Police Regulations.
The learned Judges of the High Court held that the
respondent was charged with committing cognizable
offences and therefore sub-paragraph (1) of para. 486
governed the situation and that, as no case, as required by the said sub-paragraph, was registered against
the respondent in the police station, the order of dismissal was invalid. They further held that the case
was not covered by the first proviso to sub-paragraph
(1) of para. 486, as, in their opinion, the information
676
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1961]
r960
about the commission of the offences was not in the
--
first instance received by the Magistrate and forwarded
T.he State of Uttar t th
l"
"
·
·
I
·
f th t fi d"
p
desh o;. Others o
e po ice ior mquiry.
n view o
a
n mg
ra
v.
they found it unnecessary for them to express any
Ajodhya Prasad opinion upon other arguments which had been advanced on behalf of the respondent. In the result they
Subba Rao J
issued a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned orders. Hence the appeal.
Mr. C. B. Agarwala, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants, raised before us the following points:
(1) The Governor exercised his pleasure through the
Superintendent of Police, and, as the Police Regulations were only administrative directions, the non-compliance therewith would not in any way affect the
validity of the order of dismissal.
(2) If the order of
dismissal was held to have been made under the
Rtatutory power conferred upon the Superintendent of
Police, the regulations providing for investigation in
the first place under chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code were only directory in nature, and
inasmuch as no prejudice was caused to the respondent the non-compliance with the said regulations
would not affect the validity of the order of dismissal.
(3) The Superintendent of Police was authorized to
follow the alternative procedure prescribed by subparagraph (3) of para. 486 and, therefore, the inquiry
held without following the procedure prescribed by
rule I was not bad. (4) As the magisterial inquiry was
held in regard to practically all the charges, the subject matter of the departmental trial, the case is not
covered by the provisions of para. 4S6 of the Police
Regulations.
In the case of The State of U. P. v. Babu Ram
Upadhya (1) in which we have just delivered the judgment, we have considered the first three points and
for the reasons mentioned therein we reject the first
three contentions.
The appellants must succeed on the fourth contention. From the facts already narrated, the conduct of
the respondent, when he was officer incharge of the
Police Station, Intiathok, was the subject-matter of
!1) Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1959; [1961] 2 S.C.R. 679.
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
677
magisterial inquiry. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate
' 9~
made inquiry in respect of seven of the charges which The State of uttar
were the subject-matter of the departmental trial and Pradesh & Others
submitted a report to the District Magistrate. The
v.
District Magistrate, in his turn, made an endorsement Ajodhya Prasad
on the report and communicated the same to the
f
h
Subba Rao ].
Superintendent o Police recommending t e transfer
of the respondent and suggesting that in the meanwhile the work of the respondent might be closely
watched. Though the Superintendent of Police gave
at first a good certificate to the respondent, in respect
of the same a further probe was made through the
C.I.D. Thereafter the Superintendent of Police conducted a departmental trial in respect of the aforesaid
seven charges and two other new charges of the same
nature. The inquiry ended in the dismissal of the
respondent. In the circumstances it would be hypertechnical to hold that there was no magisterial inquiry
in respect of the matter which was the subject-matter
of the departmental trial. On the said facts we hold
that the departmental inquiry was only a further step
in respect of the misconduct of the respondent in
regard whereto the magisterial inquiry was held at an
earlier stage. If so, the question is whether para. 486
would govern the present inquiry or it would fall outside its scope.
The relevant provisions of the Police Regulations
read:
Paragraph 486: "When the offence alleged against
a police officer amounts to an offence only under s. 7
of the Police Act, there can be no magisterial inquiry
under the Criminal Procedure Code. In such cases,
and in other cases until and unless a magisterial
inquiry is ordered, inquiry will be made under the
direction of the Superintendent of Police in accordance
with the following rules;"
Paragraph 489: "A police officer may be departmentally tried under section 7 of the Police Act-
(1) after he has been tried judicially;
(2) after a magisterial inquiry under the Criminal
Procedure Code;
86
678
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1961)
1960
(3). after a police investigation under the Criminal
-
Procedure Code or a departmental enquiry under
The Stale of Ull••paragraph 486 III above."
Pradesh ©- Others
.
.
. .
.
.
~·
A comb1rted readmg of these prov1s10ns mdicates that
Ajodhya Prasad para. 486 does not apply to a case where a magisterial
inquiry is ordered; and that a police officer can be
Subba Rao J. departmentally tried under s. 7 of the Police Act after
such a magisterial inquiry. In this case the departmental trial was held subsequent to the completion of
the magisterial inquiry and therefore it falls within
the express terms of para. 489(2). The fact that in
the interregnum the police received further complaints
or that the C.I.D. made further enquiries do not affect
the question, if substantially the subject-matter of the
magisterial inquiry and the departmental trial is the
same. In this case we have held that it was substantially the same and therefore the departmental
trial was validly held.
We, therefore, set aside the
order made by the High Court. As we have pointed
out earlier, the High Court, in the view taken by it,
did not express its opinion on the other questions
raised and argued before it. In the circumstances, we
remand the matter to the High Court for disposal in
accordance with law.
The costs of tliis appeal will abide the result.
WANCHOO, J.-We have read the judgment just
delivered by our learned brother Subba Rao J. We
agree with the order proposed by him. Our reasons
for coming to this conclusion are, however, the same
which we have given in C.A. 119 of 1959, The State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Babu Ram Upadhya.
Appeal aUowed.
Gase remanded.