19 Jan 2024 1:38 PM GMT
The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment (on January 18), refused to interfere with the Gauhati High Court's ruling that Rule 63(iii) of the Assam Police Manual was invalid being in direct conflict with Section 14(2) of the Assam Police Act, 2007 (Act).
To provide a brief background to the concerned provisions, Rule 63(iii) of the Manual prescribes that the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs)/Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) of a Superintendent of Police (SP) should be initiated by the Deputy Commissioner(an officer of the IAS or State Civil Service) concerned.
Per contra, Section 14(2) of the Act makes it clear that the Deputy Commissioner would not have the power to interfere with the internal organization of the police in the district or with discipline within the police force.
Thus, the core issue for adjudication was whether Rule 63(iii) of the Manual, which prescribes that the Deputy Commissioner should initiate the above-mentioned assessment as the 'Reporting Authority,' is lawful.
Supreme Court's Observations
At the outset, the Court noted that the earlier system of governance under the Police Act of 1861 was different from the present one. The reason was that earlier, the Deputy Commissioner exercised far wider powers, being the head of the criminal and police administration in the district.
The Court also delved into Rule 25(c) of the Manual, which entitled the Deputy Commissioner to order an enquiry in case of misconduct by a police officer. The Court opined that the same Rule is in direct variance with Section 14(2) of the Act as it divests the Deputy Commissioner of such disciplinary power.
Notably, the Court also observed that merely because officers are deployed/deputed in the State of Assam, they cannot be denied the benefit of the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007, which would be applicable all over the country.
Pertinently, the 2007 Rules define reporting, reviewing, and accepting authorities to mean that they must all be from the same service or department. However, a Deputy Commissioner, either an IAS Officer or a State Civil Service Officer, would be independent of the police department. Thus, intervention by him/ her during the exercise of performance assessment of SPs of the districts was held to be in direct conflict.
“On the above analysis and given the fact that the 1970 Rules/2007 Rules define reporting, reviewing and accepting authorities to mean that they must all be from the same service or department, intervention by the Deputy Commissioner during the exercise of performance assessment of SPs of the districts in the State of Assam, by virtue of Rule 63(iii) of the Manual, cannot be countenanced, being in direct conflict therewith, and would tantamount to permitting the Deputy Commissioner to interfere with the internal organization of the police force, which would be contrary to the mandate of Section 14(2) of the Act of 2007.,” Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar held.
The Court also pointed out that the Government was given the discretion to empower any of the authorities who supervise the performance of the officer reported upon to assume such a role. However, it held that such discretion cannot mean that someone outside the department can be given such power.
“In effect, Rule 63(iii) of the Manual does not fit in with the scheme obtaining under the 1970 Rules and the 2007 Rules.,” the Court held.
Harmonious Construction
At the end, the Court also briefly touched upon the aspect of harmonious construction between Section 14(1) and Section 14(2) of the Act.
While Section 14(1) states that administration of the police is vested in the SP, under the general control and direction of such Deputy Commissioner; Section 14(2), as mentioned, makes it clear that the Commissioner has no authority to interfere with the discipline of the police force.
Thus, it is evident that, on one hand, Section 14(1) vests the Deputy Commissioner with control over the SP, but Section 14(2) states otherwise. Thus, the Court opined that the provisions should be construed through harmonious construction.
“These provisions must be harmoniously construed by restricting the power vesting in the Deputy Commissioner under Section 14(1), by duly carving out what has been excepted under Section 14(2). Such harmonious construction would be necessary to give effect to both provisions, so that they operate without conflict and a head-on collision.,” the Court concluded.
On the above projection, the Court refused to allow the instant appeal and affirmed the view taken by the Gauhati High Court.
Case Title: The State of Assam and others v. Binod Kumar and others., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1933 OF 2023
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 46
Click here to read/ download the judgment