ORDER This writ petition by Shri R. K. Tomalsana Singh under Articles 226, 227 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India raises the question about the validity of order dated 27th July 1951 issued by the Chief Commissioner of Manipur in his capacity as Inspector General of Police, Manipur. By that order the Inspector General of Police directed that the rules contained in parts I to V of Assam Police Manual shall apply to the Manipur Police including the Manipur Rifles. 2. The petitioner Tomalsana Singh joined the Manipur Police Service as a constable in the year 1952 and was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police in course of time. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 26th October 1964 by the Superintendent of Police, Manipur, with a view to hold departmental enquiry against him on the charge that he had absented himself from duty from 23-9-1964 to 24-10-1964 without taking leave while he was posted as Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, Tamenglong. Before that enquiry could conclude, another departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the charge that he had failed to hand over Rs. 145/-, lying in trust with him as Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, Tamenglong, to his successor -in-office when he laid down the charge on 2-11-1964 pursuant to the suspension order dated 26th October 1964. Tomalsana Singh submitted his written statement denying the charge of defalcation. Thereafter, an enquiry was held respecting that charge by Shri Ch. Nandakishore Singh, the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Manipur. The Enquiry Officer held in his report submitted to the Superintendent of Police that the charge had been proved against Tomalsana Singh. The Superintendent of Police, thereupon, issued a notice to Tomalsana Singh calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. Tomalsana Singh submitted a representation against the proposed punishment to the Superintendent of Police, but the latter dismissed him from service by an order dated 11th May, 1965. Aggrieved by his dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Commissioner, Manipur, but the latter rejected the same on 17th August 1966. In the writ petition filed on 27-2-1967, Tomalsana Singh challenged the constitutional validity of his dismissal. 3. Aggrieved by his dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Commissioner, Manipur, but the latter rejected the same on 17th August 1966. In the writ petition filed on 27-2-1967, Tomalsana Singh challenged the constitutional validity of his dismissal. 3. The principal grounds urged in support of the prayer made were: (i) That the State Government had not framed any rules under Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861, and as such no disciplinary proceeding could be initiated against him; (ii) That the Assam Police Manual had not been extended to the Union Territory of Manipur by a competent authority and as such the enquiry held against him in terms of that Manual is vitiated; (iii) That Shri Ch. Nandakishore Singh, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, had not been appointed as the Enquiry Officer and as such the enquiry held by him was invalid; and (iv) That on 29-3-1964 the petitioner requested Shri Nandakishore Singh for furnishing him copies of certain documents which the prosecution wanted to rely upon against him, but Shri Nandakishore Singh refused to furnish him those copies. This last act of the Enquiry Officer, it was pleaded, was illegal because it violated the principles of natural justice as also the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. The petitioner alleged specifically that the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules of 1957, hereinafter called the 1957 Rules, do not apply to the members of the Manipur Police for the purposes of departmental proceedings. 4. The respondents traversed the pleadings of Tomalsana Singh and opposed his contention that his dismissal from service was illegal or unconstitutional. It was asserted that Shri Nandakishore Singh had been appointed as an Enquiry Officer by the Superintendent of Police by an order dated 15-2-1967, and that Parts I to V of the Assam Police Manual were and are still in force in the Union Territory of Manipur. It was pleaded that the enquiry held and the report made by Shri Nandakishore Singh as also the order of dismissal passed by the Superintendent of Police were all valid in law. The charge of the petitioner that he had been denied access to certain documents was refuted. It was pleaded that the enquiry held and the report made by Shri Nandakishore Singh as also the order of dismissal passed by the Superintendent of Police were all valid in law. The charge of the petitioner that he had been denied access to certain documents was refuted. It was alleged in that connection that before the proceedings had commenced before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner had inspected all the documents on which the prosecution intended to rely upon and that it was during the course of enquiry that the petitioner made an application on 29-3-65 for furnishing him copies of certain important documents. The Enquiry Officer rejected that application, it was added, on the basis that the petitioner had inspected the records and so the demand for copies thereof was not justified. In para 7 of their counter-affidavit the respondents alleged that assuming that Parts I to V of the Assam Police Manual are not in force in the Territory of Manipur, then too the impugned order is legal and valid since the procedure adopted in the departmental enquiry was in conformity with the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Article 311 inasmuch as adequate opportunity had been given to Tomalsana Singh to meet the charge levelled against him. 5. Since the principal point debated in this Court relates to the validity of the order dated 27th July 1951 by the Inspector-General of Police, it looks necessary that that order should be reproduced here. It runs as under:- "In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 12 of the Police Act (V of 1861). I, E. P. Moon, Chief Commissioner of Manipur, in my capacity as Inspector General of Police, hereby direct, for the guidance of the Police Force in Manipur, that the rules laid down in the Assam Police Manual, Parts I to V, shall apply to the Manipur Police, and for the purpose of facilitating the application of these rules, they may be construed with such alterations and modifications, not affecting the substance, as may be necessary or proper having regard to existing administrative arrangements in this State. And I further direct that for the aforesaid purpose, the Manipur Rifles shall be deemed to be a part of the Armed Police Force." Shri R. K. Manisana Singh, appearing for the writ petitioner, vigorously contended that the Inspector General of Police had no authority in terms of Section 12 of the Police Act to make rules governing the disciplinary proceedings against the police personnel. Section 12 reads as under:- "The Inspector General of Police may, from time to time, subject to the approval of the State Government, frame such orders and rules as he shall deem expedient relative to the organization, classification and distribution of the Police Force, the places at which the members of the Force shall reside, and the particular services to be performed by them; their inspection, the description of arms, accoutrements and other necessaries to be furnished to them; the collecting and communicating by them of intelligence and information, and all such other orders and. rules relative to the Police Force as the Inspector General shall, from time to time, deem expedient for preventing abuse or neglect of duty, and for tendering such force efficient in the disharge "of its duties." Shri Ibotombi Singh, the learned Government Advocate, submitted, on the contrary, that the expression "organisation" used in Section 12 is wide enough to embrace the formulation of rules by the Inspector General of Police bearing on departmental enquiries against the members of Police Force. He was, however, unable to cite any authority in support of his submission, or any convincing argument to reinforce it. He agreed that since the expression "organization" is not defined in the Police Act or in any other Central Act, we have to interpret it according to its dictionary meaning. In Chamberss Twentieth Century Dictionary the word organization is defined: "the act of organizing; the state of being organized the manner in which anything is organized; an organized system, body or society; a party machine; the singing of the organum". I think none of the meanings of the ward "organization" can sustain the contention mat it includes rules or measures for disciplinary proceedings. The term "organization", it appears to me, has more to do with the constitution of a body rather than how to enforce disciplinary measures against the constituents ents of that body. I think none of the meanings of the ward "organization" can sustain the contention mat it includes rules or measures for disciplinary proceedings. The term "organization", it appears to me, has more to do with the constitution of a body rather than how to enforce disciplinary measures against the constituents ents of that body. In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the word is defined to mean, inter alia, "bodily constitution; the way in which a living being is organized; the structure of an organized body." On such meaning of the term "organization," I cannot accept the submission of Shri Ibotommbi Singh that the Inspector General of Police has any rule-making power under Section 12 of the Act relevant to the disciplinary proceedings against the members of the police Force. 6. A plain reading of Section 12 would show that the Inspector General of Police can frame orders and rules only with the approval of the State Government. The order dated 27th July 1951 (reproduced above) does not mention that the Inspector General of Police had taken the approval of the State Government before adopting Parts I to V of the Assam Police Manual. Nor was the Government Advocate in a position to state firmly that the Inspector General of Police had secured the approval of the state Government before passing that order. Therefore, on the basis of that order it is not possible to hold, as canvassed by the Government Advocate, that the provisions of Parts I to V of the Assam police Manual have been legally enforce in the Union Territory of Manipur. Previous approval of the State Government was sine qua non for the validity of the order issued by the Inspector General of Police Sections 7 and 46 of the Police Act indicate clearly that rules bearing on the disciplinary measures against the Police personnel can be made only by the State Government and not by any officer of the Police Force. Section 7 enacts that 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 the Act, the Inspector General or any out of the other senior officers mentioned therein may at any time dismiss, suspend or reduce any police officer of the subordinate ranks whom he shall think remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty or unfit for the same. It is apparent that the power given to the Inspector General and others is for taking disciplinary action against the errant officer and not for formulating the rules governing the departmental enquiry leading to such action. By clause (e) of subsection (2) of Section 46, power is given to the State Government to make rules "generally, for giving effect to the provisions of this Act." The only other relevant provisions in the Police Act are Sections 3 and 4. The first mentioned section states that the superintendence of the police shall vest in, and shall be exercised by the State Government, and that except as authorised under the provisions of the Act, no person, officer or Court shall be empowered by the State Government to supersede or control any police functionary. Section 4 provides that the administration of the police shall be vested in an officer to be styled the Inspector General of Police and in such Deputy Inspector General and Assistant Inspectors General as to the State Government shall seem fit. The provisions enacted in these two sections and Sections 7, 12 and 46, in my opinion leave no scope for doubt on the point that it is the State Government and not the Head of the Police Department who can frame rules governing and regulating the disciplinary measures against the members of the Police Force. Therefore, the Inspector General of Police had no sanction of law to extend the provisions of Parts I to V of the Assam Police Manual to the Union Territory of Manipur. 7. Clause (e) of Rule 3(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, provides that those rules apply to all Government servants excepting the persons for whose appointment and other matters covered by these rules special provision is made by or under any law for the time being in force, in regard to the matters covered by such law. Indisputably, these rules of 1957 cover the subject of disciplinary measures against the Government officials. Since by order dated 27th of July 1951 of the Inspector General of Police, Manipur, the provisions contained in Parts I to V of the Assam Police Manual have not been legally extended to the Union Territory of Manipur as held above, it follows in terms of clause (e) of Rule 3(1) of 1957 Rules that they do apply to the Police Force in the Territory of Manipur. However, since the departmental enquiry had not been held and the punishment of dismissal had not been imposed in accordance with the provisions of the 1957 Rules, neither the enquiry nor the punishment can be, held to be valid in law. Therefore, the order of dismissal passed against the writ petitioner cannot be sustained. 8. The submission of the Government Advocate that since there is not much of difference between the procedure prescribed by Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual and the relevant provisions of 1957 Rules in the matter of holding enquiry in a departmental proceeding, the enquiry held in accordance with Rule 66 may be considered as an enquiry held in terms of 1957 Rules, has failed to carry conviction with me. A careful study of the relevant parts of the Assam Police Manual and 1957 Rules would bring out that there are some fundamental differences between them. The procedure for such an enquiry provided by 1957 Rules is far too beneficial and equitable from the stand point of the delinquent official as compared to that provided in the Assam Police Manual. At any rate, it sounds odd that the enquiry contemplated by the Rules formulated under Article 309 of the Constitution can be substituted by an enquiry held under the Assam Police Manual. The principles of jurisprudence cannot brook such a stand. Hence, I repel the proposition canvassed by the learned Government Advocate. 9. No other point was pressed by him (Government Advocate) to support the defence set up by the respondents in port of the order dismissing the writ petitioner from service. 10. As a result of the conclusions recorded above, I quash the order dated 1lth May 1965 of respondent No. 1 by which he dismissed R. K. Tomalsana Singh from service. No other point was pressed by him (Government Advocate) to support the defence set up by the respondents in port of the order dismissing the writ petitioner from service. 10. As a result of the conclusions recorded above, I quash the order dated 1lth May 1965 of respondent No. 1 by which he dismissed R. K. Tomalsana Singh from service. However, I may make it clear that the decision of this Court shall not preclude the appropriate authority from enquiring into the charge against R. K. Tomalsana Singh respecting the alleged defalcation of Rs. 145/- in terms of such Rules under which the enquiry can be legally held against him. Nor do I feel any necessity in the present writ petition to give any finding respecting the enquiry pending against R. K. Tomalsana Singh on the other charges. 11. Taking all the facts into consideration, I have decided to leave the parties to bear their own costs. Advocates fee Rs. 50/-. Order accordingly.