Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 451 (KAR)

Umapathy B. E. v. State of Karnataka

2013-04-03

S.ABDUL NAZEER

body2013
ORDER S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—The petitioner has called in question the validity of the notification at Annexure-A, dated 13-2-2013 whereby the respondent has reconstituted the Police Establishment Board by removing the petitioner as its member. The petitioner is a 1981 Batch IPS Officer and is working as Director General of Police (Research and Restructuring). The State Government established Police Establishment Board ('Board' for short) consisting of the Director General and Inspector General of Police as its Chairman and three senior most Director Generals of Police as its members and Additional Director General of Police as its convenor. The petitioner being one of the senior most Director Generals of Police was included in the Board. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government has issued a notification dated 26-11-2012 nominating Additional Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City as its member in place of the petitioner. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition challenging the said notification. 2-A. Sri B.K. Sampath Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has challenged the appointment of Sri Lalrokhuma Pachuau for the post of Director General and Inspector General of Police before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in O.A. No. 71 of 2013. That is why petitioner has been removed from the Board. It is argued that as per Section 20-B of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 ('Act' for short), the Director General and Inspector General of Police has to be appointed as Chairman and three senior most Police Officers not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police working within the Police Department as members and Additional Director of Police (Administration) as its convenor. The petitioner is the Director General of Police and is the third senior most Police Officer in the State apart from the Director General and Inspector General of Police. Therefore, he could not have been removed from the Board. It is further submitted that the petitioner has challenged the appointment of Sri Lalrokhuma Pachuau as the Director General and Inspector General of Police before the CAT. This is the main reason for his removal from the Board as its member. In fact, disciplinary action has been initiated against him under All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. Even before the service of notice under Rule 8(4), the petitioner has been removed from the Board. This is the main reason for his removal from the Board as its member. In fact, disciplinary action has been initiated against him under All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. Even before the service of notice under Rule 8(4), the petitioner has been removed from the Board. The order of removal has serious civil consequences. The newspapers have reported that petitioner has been removed as member of the Board on charges of dereliction of duty. The order of removal of the petitioner from the Board is unilateral in nature and is violative of the principles of natural justice. 3. On the other hand, Sri Sajan Poovaiah, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the Government is competent to reconstitute the Board by appointing three Senior Officers not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police working in the Police Department as members. Petitioner has no vested right to continue in the Board. The State Government is within its authority to reconstitute the Board. Therefore, it is not necessary to follow the principles of natural justice as contended by the petitioner. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. 5. Section 20-B of the Act as amended by Act No. 30 of 2012 provides for establishment of Police Establishment Board. It states as under: 20-B. Police Establishment Board.--(1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish a Police Establishment Board with the Director General and Inspector General of Police as Chairman and three senior most Police Officers not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police working within the Police Department as members. Additional Director General of Police (Administration) shall be the convenor. 6. It is clear from the aforesaid provision that the Director General and Inspector General of Police has to be appointed as the Chairman of the Board and three senior most Police Officers not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police working within the Police Department as members. The Additional Director General of Police (Administration) shall be the convenor. 7. The petitioner is the Director General of Police. He is the third senior most Police Officer in the State apart from the Director General and Inspector General of Police. The Additional Director General of Police (Administration) shall be the convenor. 7. The petitioner is the Director General of Police. He is the third senior most Police Officer in the State apart from the Director General and Inspector General of Police. The Act mandates three senior most Police Officers not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police to be the members of the Board. The Director General and Inspector General of Police has to be the Chairman. Therefore, removal of the petitioner from the Board and nominating some other officer junior to him though the rank of Additional Director General of Police is contrary to Section 20-B. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that State Government should be allowed to have flexibility in the joints while nominating the Senior Officers as the members of the Board depending upon the situation and that Court has to make a purposeful interpretation of the provision in order to effectuate the intention of the Legislature. 9. It is well-settled rule of interpretation that a statute must be construed according to its plain language and neither the language be added nor subtracted unless there are adequate grounds to justify the interference that the Legislature clearly so intended. The Court cannot rewrite, recast and redesign the provision since the power to legislate has not been conferred on the Court. It can only interpret a provision so as to make explicit the intention of the Legislature. 10. The language contained in Section 20-B is very clear that three senior most Police Officers not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police working within the Police Department has to be nominated as its members. If the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General is to be accepted, the expression 'senior most' contained in the provision has to be ignored. The Court cannot amend the legislation as it has no power to legislate. In my opinion, the intention of the Legislature is very clear that three senior most officers not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police working in the Police Department has to be nominated as the members of the Board. 11. The Court cannot amend the legislation as it has no power to legislate. In my opinion, the intention of the Legislature is very clear that three senior most officers not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police working in the Police Department has to be nominated as the members of the Board. 11. In view of the aforesaid conclusion that removal of the petitioner from the Board is contrary to Section 20-B, it is unnecessary to consider the other contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned is violative of principles of natural justice. In the light of the discussion made above, the notification at Annexure-A, dated 13-2-2013 is hereby quashed and the notification at Annexure-F, dated 23-6-2012 is restored. No costs.