Holding

The Inspector General’s suo motu power under Rule 853‑A is valid to revise or set aside an exonerating order, and the High Court erred in restricting that power.

Summary

Sheo Narayan Singh, a constable in the Bihar Military Police, was dismissed for forging his military service records. He appealed the dismissal, which was set aside by the Deputy Inspector General but later restored by the Director General using power under Rule 853‑A of the Bihar Police Manual. The High Court quashed the Director General's order, holding that the Inspector General's suo motu power could not be exercised to modify an exonerating order and that natural justice was not observed. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Rule 853 and Rule 853‑A are independent; the latter gives the Inspector General authority to call for the file and pass a revisional order even without a memorial, including to overturn an exonerating order. Consequently, the High Court's decision was reversed and the Director General's order was restored.

Issues considered

The scope and effect of Rule 853 versus Rule 853‑A of the Bihar Police Manual
Whether the Inspector General can suo motu modify or set aside an exonerating order under Rule 853‑A
Whether a memorial or revision is required to invoke the power under Rule 853‑A
Whether the Director General’s order violated principles of natural justice

Subjects

service lawpolice manualRule 853Rule 853‑Adisciplinary proceedingssuo motu powernatural justicedismissalexoneration

Judgment

......
'

·- THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
v.
A

SHEO NARAYAN SINGH

JANUARY 27, 1997

lJ.S. VERMA, SUHAS C. SEN AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.} B

Service Law-Bihar Police Manual-Rules 853-A and 853-Scope
... com-
pare~lnspector General's Power under Rule 853-A to modify the Order
passed by the authority below-Held: Exercisable not only in respect of Order
of Punishment but also in respect of exonerati01r-Can be exercised suomotu c
even without a memorial or revision on his satisfaction that tlte impugned
order calls for revision-power under R. 853 exercisable only on the basis of
revision and in case of order.of punishment.

Respondent a Constable in Bihar Military Police, was dismissed .
' )' . from seriice on being found guilty of forging the rocords of his previous D .
military service in order to procure the job. On appeal, the Deputy Inspec-
tor General, .set aside the order of dismissal. But the Director C.eneral
reversed the same and restored the order of dismissal in exercise of his
power under soction 853A(a) of the Bihar Police Manual, which was
challenged by the respondent by tiling a writ petition in the High Court. E
The High Court allowed the writ petition quashed the impugned order and
dirocted the Diroctor General to pass a fresh order after giving an oppor-
tunity to the respondent of being beard. The Director General, after
hearing the petitioner dismissed him froni service, against which the
·~
respondent tiled a Writ petition in the High Court. The High Court allowed
the same holding that the suo motu powers of the Inspector General under F
Rule 853-A of the Police Manual did not envisage a case where an officer
had been exonerate in a departmental proceedi'ng. It also held that there
was no provisicm in Rule 853 by which the department could prefer a
memorial or revision against the order exonerating a police officer. The
State of Bihar has preferred the present appeal against the order of the G
High Court.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The High Court clearly failed to appreciate the scope
and efToct of Rules 853 and 853-A of the Bihar Police Manual. The two H
549
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 1 S.C.R .

A Rules are independent of ea ch other. The scope a nd purpose of Rules 853
and 853-A a re quite d ifferent. Rule 853 deals with memoria ls and revisi on
which stre filed by a person against whom fi nal orders of d,ismissal,
rem oval or r eduction in rank ha d been passed. The power under Rule
853-A is not to be exercised on the basis of a memorial or a revision filed
B by a n aggrieved party. The power is t o be exercised whenever the Inspector
Gener a l is of the view that the impugned order calls for revisions. T he
order contempla ted under Rule 853·A need nnt be against a fin al order of
"dismissal, r emoval or reduction in rank". l555-E-D] -·
1.2. T~te provisions of 853-A give suo motu power to the Inspector
C Genera l to pass such order as he may de~:m fit when a n appeal lay a nd a lso
when no appeal could be fil ed. After the a uthority ha d erroneously passed
an order exoner ating r esponden t of the charges levelled against ~ im, the
Inspector venera! could under sub-rule (a) of Rult: 853-A call for the tile
and pass such order as be d eem~:d fi t. Tilis wide power ena bles the Inspec-
tor General to inflict a punishment when such an or der is called for a nd
D exonerate an offi cer when punishment has been wrongly given.
[554-H; 555-A-8 )
CIVIL APPELLATE .JURlSDICTJON : Civil Appeal No. 6538 of
1994.

E From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.93 of the Patna High
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2733 of 1993.

Uday Sinha, R atan Kumar Choudhuri and Anil Kr. Jha for the
Appellants.

F Gopal Singh for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was d elivered by

SEN, J. When the case was taken up for hearing. Shri Gopal Singh,
Advocate who was appearing for the respondent-S·heo Narayan Singh all
G throughout submitted that his client had taken away the papers from him
and he had instructions not to represent him in this appeal. He stated that
he has no instructions to appear in this matter. Since the respondent had
already been served and since he had taken away the papers from his
advocate and had instructed him not to appear for him, it was his duty to
arrange for proper representation of his case. Since nobody has ap peared
H for the respondent, we have decid ed to proceed with the matter ex parte.
STATEv. S. . SlNGH [SEN,J.J 551
- ") This is an appeal against the judgment and order pa!iscd by the
Division Bench of the Patna High Court on 8/ l5.12.l993 by which an order
A

of Inspector General of Police dated 10.9.1993 was quashed.

The facts of the case are as under :

Sheo Narayan Singh was appointed us Constable in Bihar Military B
Police in the year 1984. The allegation against Sheo Narayan Singh was that
·it order to procure the appointment, he had manipulated records of his
military service. He had suppressed the fact that while serving the Army,
he was $Cntenced to four months' Civil lmprisonment by a Court Martial,
and thereafter, he was dismissed from military service. He had forged the C
service records for getting job as Constable in Bihar Military Police.
Coming to know of the true facts about his career in the Army, disciplinary
proceedings were commenced against him. Ultimately Shco Narayan Singh
was dismissed from service after having been found guilty of the charges.

On 7th February, 1991, Sheo Narayan Singh preferred an appeal D
before the Deputy ln!ipector General, Bihar Military Police who allowed
the appeal and !iel aside the order of dismissal. On 3rd June, 1992, the
Director General of Police sel aside order pas!ied by the Deputy Inspector
General and restored lhe order of dismissal in exercise of his powers under
Rule 853-A(a) of t he Bihar Police Manual. This order of the Director E
General of Police was challenged by Shco Narayan Singh by filing a writ
petition in the High Court.

The. H igh Court found that prior lo
the passing of ·t he order by the
Director General, the petitioner was not given any notice to show cause
nor was, otherwise, given any opportunity of being heard. The High Court F
was of the view that the impugned order was passed by the Director
General of Police without compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The writ petition was, therefore. allowed and the impugned order was
quashed. The Court, howevct, directed the Director General to pass a
fresh order after giving an opportunity of being heard to Sheo Narayan G
Singh.

Thereupon, the Director General of Police as well as the Acting
Inspector General asked the appellant for an explanation as to why he
should no be removed from service by memo dated 3.5.1993. An explana-
tion was given by Sbeo Narayan Singh in which he raised mainly two issues: H
,...

552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997}1 S.C.R.

A (1) The Additional Director General had no right to ask for any
explanation.

(2) Afler the charge against him had been quashed by the High
Court, there was no scope for initiating disciplinary proceed-
ings de novo.
B
Both the contentions were rejected by the Director General. It was,
pointed out that the explanation was properly called for. It was further
pointed out that the High Court had not quashed the charge-sheet, but had
directed the Director General to pass fresh order after giving an oppor-
C tunity of hearing to Lhe writ petitioner. The Director General, therefore,
passed an order dismissing the appellant from service once again.

In the order, it was specifically noted that at the time of his appoint-
ment the appellant had produced a discharge book from the army in which
D it was shown that he had been discharged from service at his own request
on the ground of domestic problem. On verification from the army
authorities, it transpired that the Sepoy (Sheo Narayan Singh) had ·been
sentenced by the Cot!rt Martial to undergo imprisonment in a civil jail for
a period of four months and he was dismissed from service. These facts
clearly established deceitfulness and forgery on the part of the Sepoy on
E the strength of which the appointment was made.

. After. the second order. passed by the Director General of Police, a
further writ petition was filed in the Patna High Court which was heard by
. another Division Bench in which the only contention was that in Rule 853
F of the Bihar Police Manual, there was no provision by which the depart-
ment could prefer a memorial or revision· against the order exonerating
police officer. The memorials/revision could only be preferred by the p~rty
against whom an order of punishment had been passed. This argument was
upheld by the High Court which held that Rule 853 was meant to provide
a forum for officers against whom an order of punishment had been passed
G · in a disciplinary proceeding. The Court also adverted to Rule 853-A of the
Police Manual and held that the slio motu power of the Inspector General
and the State Government did not envisage a case where an officer had
been exonerated in a departmental proceeding. ln that view.of the matter,
the order dated 10.9.1993 passed by the Director General of Police was set
H aside.
STATEv. S.N.SJNGH [SEN,J.] 553
.... The State of Bihar has come in appeal against this order of the Patna A
-~
High Court.

We are of the view thal the High Court clearly failed to appreciate
the scope and effect of Rules 853 and 853-A of the Bihar Police Manual
which are as under :
B
"853. Memorials and revision. -No memorial or petition, which is
.... a representati<.m against an ordl:r passed in a disciplinary case shall
..,.<
be submitted t6 any authority other than the authority which under
the rule for the time being ·in force is empowered to entertain the
appeal:
c
Provided that an officer of the rank not below the rank of
Sub-Inspector may, if a final order of dismissal, removal, or reduc-
tion in rank has been passed in appeal against him in a disciplinary
case, submit to Government through the proper channel a
memorial against such order, within six months after the date on D
')- which the officer submitting the memorial was informed of the
order on appeal :

Provided further that memorials of and below the rank o.f
Ac;sistant Sub-Inspectors shall be entertained by Inspector General
only in cases of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank if they are E
submitted with a period of six months after the date on which the
memorialist was informed of the order passed in the appeal :

Provided further that the Inspector-General shall submit
quarterly to Government a statement of memorials from Police
Officers below the rank of Sub-Inspector which have been withheld F
·by him under the provisions of these rules.

853-A. (a) Inspector-General may call for the file in any case even
when no appeal lies and pass such order as he may deem fit. The
Deputy Inspector-General may ca11 for any file but be should refer G
it to the Inspector General with his recommendation for his order.
The above action should be taken Within a reasonable time from
-4. the date of final order in departmental proceeding.

(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the State
Government may call for the proceedings in any disciplinary case H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R.
A even when no appeal or memorial lies, and pass such order as it -t· ...
may deem tit.

(c) When an appeal has been filed and the Inspector-General
on applying his mind thinks that he should enhance the punish-
ment, he can dismiss the appeal bul must simultaneously mention
B in that order that as per powers given in the rule 853-A (a), he
has decided to review it for enhancement and take . action for
obtaining a show cause, etc., where necessary."

Rule 853 deals with "memorials and revision". [t declares that no
C memorials or petition against an order passed in a disciplinary proceeding
shall be submitted to any authority other than the authority which under
the rule in force was empowered to entertain the appeal. The proviso
enables an officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector or of higher rank to submit
to the Government a memorial against an order of "dismissal, removal or
reduction in rank". The second proviso enables officers below the rank of
D Assistant Sub-Inspector to prefer memorial to the Inspector General "only
in cases of dismissal, removal and reduction in rank" within the period-of "'- '
time prescribed in the proviso. ·

Rule 853-A, however, is not restricted in any manner by the
E provisions of Rule 853. This rule enables the Inspector to call for the file
in any case even when no appeal lay and pass such order as he may deem
fit. The Deputy Inspector General is also empowered to call for any file
but he is not empowered to pass an order. All that he can do is to refer
the file to the Inspector General with recommendations for his orders.
Sub-rule (b) of Rule 853-A also empowers the State Government to call
F for the proceedings in any disciplinary proceedings even when no appeal
Jay or no memorial could be filed and pass such order as it deems fit.
Sub-clause (c) of Rule 853-A deals with a case where appeal has been filed
and In~pector General is of the view that the punishment should be
enhanced. He can then dismiss the appeal, but he must simultaneously
G mention in that order that as per his powers given in Rule 853-A, he had
decided to review it for enhancement and take action after issuing a show
cause notice where necessary.

These provisions of Rule 853-A go to show that the Inspector ...
General has been given suo motu power to pass such order as he may deem
H fit when an appeal lay and also when no appeal could be filed. Even when
STATE v. S.N. SINGH [SEN, J.] 555
an appeal had been ftled, the Inspector General could pass an order A
enhancing the punishment. From this; it however, does not follow that the
Inspector General could not pass any order under Rule 853-A unless and
until an order of punishment had been passed by the authority. After the
authority had erroneously passed an order exonerating the Sepoy of the
charges levelled against him,. the Inspector General could under sub-rule B
(a) of Rule 853-A call for the file and pass such order as he deemed fit.
This wide power enables the Inspector General to inflict a punishment
when such an order is called for and exonerate an officer of punishment
when such punishment has been wrongly given. There is nothing in the
wording of Rule 853-A to suggest that the Inspector General can act only
I •

when not order of punishment has been passed by the authority below him C
and not when an order has been passed exonerating an officer of the charge
levelled against him.

T~e scope and purpose of Rules 853 and 853A are quite different.
Rule 853 deals with memorials and revision which were fJJed by a person
against whom final orders of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank had D
been passed. The power under Rule 853-A is not to be exercised on the
basis of a memorial or a revision filed by an aggrieved party. The power is
to be exercised whenever the Inspector General is of the view th~t the
impugned order calls for revision. The order contemplated under Rule
853-A need not be against a final order of "dismissal, removal or reduction E
in rank".

The High Court was clearly in error in reading into Rule 853-A the
requirements of Rule 853. The cwo rules are independent of each other.

.-( We, therefore, allow this appeal and restore the order of the Director F
General of Police dated 10.9.1993. There would be no order as to costs.

H.K. Appeal allowed.