State of Punjab and Others vs Surinder Kumar

S.S. Sodhi, J.—Is the Additional Superintendent'' of Police to be taken to be an officer lower in rank than the Superintendent of Police? This matter arises in the context of the validity of the order of dismissal passed against the Plaintiff-constable Surinder Kumar, by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Patiala, on April 1, 1981, challenged in appeal being the setting aside of the impugned order of dismissal by the lower appellate Court holding it to be an order not passed by the competent authority.

The appointing authority of the Plaintiff was the Superintendent of Police, while, as mentioned earlier, the order dismissing him from service was passed against him by the Additional Superintendent of Police.

In dealing with the point in issue, it would be pertinent to keep in view the provision of Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 (hereinafter called ''the Act''), the relevant portion of which reads as under:

Subject to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution and to such rules as the State Government may from time to time make under this Act, the Inspector General, Deputy Inspector-General, Assistant Inspectors-General and District Superintendents of Police, may at any time dismiss, suspend or reduce any police officer of the subordinate rank whom they shall think remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty or unfit for the same.

The statutory provisions here, namely, Section 7 of the Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Sunder Singh Ex-Head constable REA 195 of 1964 decided on 20th January, 1966, in the context of an order of dismissal passed against a head-constable by the Additional Inspector-General of Police. This order of dismissal was sought to be questioned on the ground that it had not been passed by the competent authority inasmuch as it had been passed by an Additional Inspector-General of Police and not the Inspector-General of Police After adverting to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, it was observed by the Division Bench that it is to be presumed that when an appointment of an Additional Inspector-General of Police is made on account of the fact that the Inspector-General had more work than he could cope with and the Additional Inspector-General of Police was appointed to take some of the work off his hands, in such circumstances, it was held it must presumed that such an officer, when appointed would be competent to exercise all or any of he functions of the Inspector-General under the Police Act in the absence of any provision to the contrary in the order of his appointment. Further, it was held that the Inspector-General of Police had concurrent powers and one was not senior in rank to the other. It was accordingly held that the order of dismissal passed by the Additional Inspector-General of Police, was indeed an order passed by the competent authority.

Similar reasoning is clearly applicable in the present case. Although the Police Act speaks only of the District Superintendent of Police, it is well settled that it is open to the State Government to appoint Additional/Superintendents of Police and when such an officer is appointed, he would be competent to exercise all or any of the functions of the Superintendent of Police under the Police Act, unless there is a provision to the contrary in the order of his appointment. In other words, in this context, both the Superintendent of Police and the Additional Superintendent of Police must be taken to have concurrent powers and the Additional Superintendent of Police and Additional Inspector General of Police had concurrent powers and was not senior in rank to the other. It was accordingly held that the order of dismissal was passed by the competent authority.

Faced with this situation counsel for the Respondent-police-constable, sought to contend that the punishment awarded was unwarranted keeping in view the nature of the ''Misconduct found-against him. The emphasis here being upon Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules Volume 1, which speaks of dismissal being the appropriate punishment for gravest acts'' of misconduct. This again is a contention which cannot be accepted as it is now well-settled that courts will not interfere with the discretion exercised by police officers in the matter of the imposition of punishment except where such discretion is found to have been exercised wantonly or arbitrarily which is dearly not the case here Further as noticed by the lower appellate Court previous record of constable Surinder Kumar showed that he had got six punishments in his 10-years of service and was recorded to be an incorrigible type. Further, his being on leave without permission was found to be wilful absence in order to avoid the Refresher Course. The punishment imposed upon him thus calls for no interferences.

The impugned order of dismissal thus suffers from no-infirmity and in this view of the matter, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate courts is hereby set aside and the suit of the-Plaintiff--Surinder Kumar is hereby dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.