VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 40
249
Departmental Regulations, Government can choose
any one of them.
Jagannath Prasad Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
AIR 1961 SC 1245
The appellant joined the Uttar Pradesh Police in 1931 as a
Sub-Inspector and in 1946 became an Inspector, and in 1947 he
was appointed to officiate as Deputy Supdt. of Police. Shortly
thereafter there were complaints against him of immorality, corruption
and gross dereliction of duty. After an enquiry, the Governor referred
his case under section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings
(Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947 to a Tribunal. The Tribunal
recommended the appellant’s dismissal from service. The Governor
served a notice on the appellant asking him to show cause why he
should not be dismissed from service. After considering his
explanation, the Governor dismissed him from service with effect
from 5-12-50. The appellant moved the High Court under Art. 26 but
was unsuccessful.
The appellant challenged his dismissal before the Supreme
Court on the ground (i) that the Governor had no power under section
7 of the Police Act and the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations to dismiss
the appellant, (ii) that the enquiry held by the Tribunal violated Art.14
of the Constitution as, of the two parallel procedures available under
the Tribunal Rules and under the Police Regulations, the one more
prejudicial to the appellant under the Tribunal Rules was adopted
and (iii) that the proceedings of the Tribunal were vitiated because of
patent irregularities which resulted in an erroneous decision as to
the guilt of the appellant.
The Supreme Court held that under para 479(a) of the
Regulations, the Governor had the power to dismiss a Police Officer.
Under the Tribunal Rules also which were duly framed, the Governor
was authorised to dismiss a Police officer. By virtue of the provisions
of Art. 313 of the Constitution, these provisions continued to remain
in operation. The authority vested in the Inspector General of Police
and his subordinates under section 7 of the Act was not exclusive. It