Case: Superintendant of Police Manipur and Others Vs. R.K. Tomolsona Singh (Dead) Through Lrs

1. One Shri R. K. Tomalsana Singh, (now dead) at the relevant time was serving asof Police in State or Manipur. He was suspended from service by an order dated October 26, 1964 by the Superintendent of Police, Manipur, being the disciplinary authority, pending a departmental inquiry against him. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charge levelled against the delinquent were proved whereupon the Superintendent of Police after giving second opportunity to the delinquent officer dismissed him from service by the order May 11, 1965. This order dismissing the originalherein from service was questioned in Civil Writ Application No. 5 of 1967 in the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Manipur. The learned Judicial Commissioner accepted the petition holding that the inquiry was not held in accordance with the relevant rules as were in force and therefore, consequential action of dismissal from service was without the authority of law. In reaching this conclusion the contention that found favour with the Court was that the order made by Chief Commissioner, Manipur dated July 27, 1951 whereby the rules included in the Assam Police Manual Partwould apply to Manipur Police and for the purpose of facilitating the application of these rules, they may be continued with such alterations and modification, not affecting the substance as may be necessary or proper having regard to the existing administrative arrangements in Manipur State, was not valid and therefore, the inquiry held against the deceased respondent in accordance with the provisions in Partof Assam Police Manual is illegal and invalid.

Reasoning:
The contention before the learned Judicial Commissioner on behalf of the appellant was that at the relevant time the office of the I.G.P. and Chief Commissioner of Manipur both were held by one Mr. E. P. Mong and even though Section 12 of the Police act, 1861 confers powers on theof Police, subject to the approval of the State Government, to issue order and frame rules, the order dated July 27, 1951 must be deemed to have been made by the Manipur State as the order in question was issued by the Chief Commissioner, Manipur who had the authority to issue order in his dual capacity as I.G.P. and mere error in describing the authority, though held, cannot vitiate the order. This contention did not find favour with the learned Commissioner and in our opinionbare reading of Section12 of the Police Act, 1861 show that the power to make rules and issue orders as may be deemed expedient relating to the organisation, classification and distribution of Police Force etc. is conferred on theof Police subject to the approval of the State Government. The power is conferred by the statute on a statutory authority calledof Police and the power is hedged in with a condition that it can be exercised subject to the approval of the State Government was not obtained and it is futile to contend that as the order issuing authority was simultaneously holding office of Chief Commissioner of Manipur State, the order dated July 27, 1951 would be deemed to have been issued with the approval of the State Government. Section 12 does not recognise the authority of Chief Commissioner to make rules, on behalf of the State Government nor any such authority was brought to our notice. Even Rules of Business, if any, were not shown either to the learned Judicial Commissar or to this Court which would spell out such authority of Chief Commissioner ofsituation as at present stands is that the order issued by the Chief Commissioner dated July 27, 1951 is being relied upon to show that the rules contained in Assam Police Manual have been validly prescribed for the administration of Manipur Police Force. The learned Commissioner was right in holding the order dated July 27, 1951 is ineffective to incorporate and apply provision contained in Partof Assam Police Manual for Police Force in Manipur State and therefore, the departmental inquiry was not held in accordance with the relevant law and rightly set aside the order of dismissal of deceased respondent from service and declared that therespondent therein shall continue to be in service and will be entitled to all the benefits which he could have had if he had continued in service. Unfortunately, therespondent herein is dead and his physical reinstatement is not possible.