Para 477 to 507-A | Chapter XXXII Departmental Punishment & Criminal Prosecution | Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations

477. Punishment Rules.-

The rules in this chapter have been made under Section 7 of the Police Act (V of 1861) and apply only to officers appointed under Section 2 Police Act (V of 1861). No officer appointed under that section shall be punished by executive order otherwise than in the manner provided in this chapter.

The punishment of gazetted officers is regulated by the conditions of their agreements with the Secretary of State and by rules made by the Secretary of State in Council under sub-section (2) of Section 96-B of the Government of India Act of 1919. The rule for the punishment of the clerical staff are given in the Office Manual; those for the punishment of village chaukidars in Chapter IX of these Regulations.

Punishments

478. Departmental punishment for all police officers appointed under Section-2 of the Police Act.-

All Police Officers appointed under Section 2 of the Police Act are liable to the following departmental punishments-

(a) dismissal or removal from force, as defined in paragraph 481;

(b) reduction as defined in paragraph 482;

(ba) withholding of promotion;

(bb) withholding of increments including stoppage at an efficiency bar;

(bc) misconduct entry in the character roll (U.P. Gazette dated 6th April, 1968);

Head constables and constables may also be punished with-

(c) confinement to quarters (this term includes confinement to quarter guard) for a term not exceeding fifteen days;

(d) punishment drill;

(e) extra guard duty;

Constables may also be punished with-

(e) Fatigue duty which should be restricted to the following tasks-

(i) tent-pitching;

(ii) drain-digging;

(iii) cutting grass, cleaning jungle and picking stones off parade grounds;

(iv) repairing huts and butts and similar work in the lines;

(v) Cleaning arms.

478-A. Punishment may be awarded after departmental proceedings.-

The punishment noted at (a) and (b) in paragraph 478 may be awarded only after departmental proceedings, vide paragraphs 490 to 494. Orders concerning (ba) may also be passed under Chapter XXX and those concerning (bb) may be passed as provided for in paragraph 463 or paragraph 482-A as the case may be The punishment noted at (bc) may be awarded after giving an opportunity to the officer concerned to show cause why a misconduct entry as may be proposed should not be made in his character Roll. The punishment noted at (bc) may also be awarded when departmental proceedings, vide paragraphs 490 to 494 are taken initially with a view to awarding one of the punishments noted at (a), (b), (ba) and (bb) and the punishing authority ultimately considers it sufficient to award only former as a less severe punishment.

Powers of Officers

479. Powers of officers for punishment.-

(a) The Governor reserves full powers of punishment with reference to all officers.

(b) The Inspector General may punish inspectors and all police officers of lower rank.

(c) Deputy Inspector General may punish all officers of and below the rank of inspector temporarily or permanently subordinate to them.

(d) The Superintendent of Police may punish all inspector and subinspectors temporarily or permanently subordinate to him except with dismissal or removal. Any case in which he proposes the dismissal or removal of an inspector or sub-inspector of any branch of the force must be forwarded for orders to the Deputy Inspector General of Police in accordance with the instructions contained in sub-paragraph 490 below.

(e) The Superintendent may punish all head constables and constables temporarily or permanently subordinate to him.

(f) Subject to the provisions of paragraph 491

(i) [all such permanent Assistant Superintendents of Police as have completed four years of service all such permanent Deputy Superintendents of Police as have crossed the first efficiency bar in time scale of pay applicable to them], and

(ii) other Assistant Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police specially authorized in this behalf by the Deputy Inspector General of Police so far as his Range concerned; may exercise all the powers of a Superintendent of Police as detailed in sub-paragraphs (d) and (e) of this paragraph other than powers relating to the punishment of inspectors of police and powers under Fundamental Rules 24 and 25.

(g) A reserve inspector may give punishment drill and fatigue duty up to a maximum of three days to constable posted in the reserve lines but his order must be dispatched from the reserve lines office to the Superintendent of Police for confirmation within twenty-four hours.

Reprimand

480. Reprimand.-

Punishments will be inflicted only when they are absolutely necessary in the interests of discipline. Before inflicting or proposing a punishment a Superintendent, Assistant or Deputy Superintendent or reserve inspector must consider whether a reprimand will not suffice. To ensure that the power of reprimand in adequately exercised by the reserve inspector a defaulter’s book (Police Form No. 277) will be maintained in the reserve lines. Petty misdemeanours in the case of a first or second offence will be entered in this book and the defaulter’s thumb impression or signature taken. Only incorrigibles should be sent up with the register to the Superintendent of Police for punishment.

Dismissal and removal

481. Dismissal and removal of an officer.-

An order of dismissal will be passed only when an officer’s conduct renders his retention in the force umdesirable. Dismissal must necessarily follow a sentence of rigorous imprisonment, and should, as a rule, follow a conviction for intentionally or negligently allowing a prisoner to escape from custody, even if the accused is sentenced to a fine. If the Superintendent does not order dismissal in the latter case, he must submit his proceedings to the Deputy Inspector General of the Range with a copy of the judgment all departmental papers in the case and the character roll of the officer concerned.

Dismissal precludes the officer dismissed from being re-employed in Government service, while removal from the force implies that, though the officer removed is unfit for police duties, he need not be debarred from reemployment under Government in another office for which he may be suited.

482. Rules that govern reduction.-

The following rules govern reduction: 

(1) No officer may be reduced to a rank lower than that in which he was first appointed to the service.

(2) No officer may be reduced, permanently, in the sense that he is never to be eligible for re-promotion however, meritorious his subsequent service may be.

(3) An officer may be reduced from one rank to another or from one stage in a time-scale to a lower stage in the same time-scale. Constables may also be reduced as prescribed in sub-paragraph (5).

(4) (a) When the pay of a reduced officer is after reduction to be regulated by a time-scale, the order of reduction shall specify the stage in the time-scale which shall be assigned to the officer and whether the period of reduction is definite or indefinite.

(b) If the reduction is to a lower rank and the period is indefinite, the stage in the time-scale of the rank to which he is reduced shall not be lower than that which the officer would have reached if he had not been promoted to the rank from which he is reduced. If the reduction is lower rank and the period is definite any stage in the lower rank may be specified.

(c) If the period of reduction is indefinite the officer shall not automatically regain his original position. If the period of reduction is definite, the period shall be specified in the order of reduction and shall not be longer than three years. At the end of a specified definite period the officer shall automatically regain his lost position, but shall not be entitled to any rank promotion which he had obtained in an officiating capacity at the time of reduction, or would have obtained if he had not been reduced.

(5) (a) Constables are in a time-scale leading up to a selection grade with a fixed number of posts. Constables may be reduced from the selection grade to the time-scale or from a higher to a lower stage in the time-scale. When a constable is reduced from the selection grade to the time-scale, the stage assigned to him shall not be lower than that to which his length of service entitles him in the time-scale and no period of reductions shall be specified : The constables shall be eligible for re-selection to the selection grade if he conduct merits selection. In the case of reduction from one stage in the timescale to a lower stage the period of reduction shall be specified and shall not exceed three years. At the end of the specified period the constable will regain that stage of the time-scale which he would have reached if he had not been reduced.

(c) In addition, constables may also be reduced as follows-

(i) ‘A’ class to ‘B’ class;

(ii) to a specified lower position in the list of constables qualified from promotion; and (iii) a combination of (i) and (ii). A constable reduced to a lower position in the list of constables qualified for promotion will, when his turn comes again to be considered for promotion, be eligible subject to the provisions of Chapter XXX.

(6) When an officer above the rank of constable is reduced to the rank of a constable, the authority ordering his reduction shall indicate the stage in the constables time-scale to which he is assigned and shall state whether he is to be classed ‘A’ or ‘B’. The authority must also indicate what position is to be allotted to him on the list of men eligible for promotion.

(7) Vacancies occurring as the result of reduction for a specified period shall be filled only in an officiating capacity. Other vacancies shall be filled permanently.

482-A. Order of upholding increment as a punishment.-

Every order withholding increment as a punishment shall state the period for which it is to be withheld. Such period shall not exceed one year and shall have the effect only if postponing the increment for the stated period.

Illustration

A Sub-Inspector draws Rs.67 in the scale of Rs.65-2-95-E.B.-2 2-1/2-120 and is due his increment on 1st January, 1947. An order is passed on 1st December, 1946 withholding his increment for one year. Throughout 1947, he will draw only Rs.67 but from 1st January, 1948 he will draw Rs.71.

A constable draws Rs. 20 and is due to draw Rs.21 from 1st January, 1949, and Rs. 22 from 1st January, 1952. On 1st December, 1946 an order is passed withholding his increment for one year. He will continue to draw Rs. 20 until 1st January, 1950 from which date he will draw Rs. 21. He will draw Rs. 22 from 1 st January, 1952.

The procedure for withholding increments otherwise than as a punishment after departmental proceedings is provided in paragraph 463.

Procedure

483. Proceeding against police officer.-

Subject to the special provision contained in paragraph 500 and to any special orders which may be passed by the Governor in particular cases a proceeding against a police officer will consist of –

A. A magisterial or police inquiry, followed, if this inquiry shows need for further action, or

B. A judicial trial, or

C. A departmental trial, or both, consecutively.

A – Inquiry

484. Nature of inquiry.-

The nature of the inquiry in any particular case will vary according to the nature of the offence. If the offence is cognizable or non-cognizable according to Schedule II of the Criminal Procedure Code and information of it is received by the District Magistrate he may in exercise of his powers under the Criminal Procedure Code either-

(1) make or order a magisterial inquiry; or

(2) order an investigation by the police.

If the information is received by a Magistrate other than a District Magistrate, and he takes cognizance of the offence, he should report the case at once to the District Magistrate who will withdraw it to his own Court under Section 410/411, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974). The District Magistrate may then act as though the original complaint had been made to him.

This power extends to cases under Section 29 of the Police Act, but magisterial inquiry in cases under this section will be ordered only in very exceptional circumstances.

485. Procedure, when a magisterial inquiry is ordered.-

When a magisterial inquiry is ordered it will be made in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code and the Superintendent of Police will have no direct concern with it until the conclusion of judicial proceedings or until and unless the case is referred to him for further disposal, but he must give any assistance to the inquiring Magistrate that he may legally be called upon to give and he must suspend the accused should this become necessary under paragraph 496.

486. Inquiry, when the offence alleged against a police officer amounts to an offence only u/s 7 of the Police Act.-

When the offence alleged against a police officer amounts to an offence only under Section 7 of the Police Act, there can be no magisterial inquiry under the Criminal Procedure Code. In such cases, and in other cases until and unless a magisterial inquiry is ordered, inquiry will be made under the direction of this Superintendent of Police in accordance with the following rules :

I.- Every information received by the police relating the commission of a cognizable offence by a police officer shall be dealt with in the first place under Chapter XII, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974) according to law, a case under the appropriate section being registered in the police station concerned provided that –

(1) if the information is received, in the first instance, by a Magistrate and forwarded by the District Magistrate to the police, no case will be registered by the police;

(2) if the information is received, in the first instance by the police, the report required by Section 157, Criminal Procedure Code, shall be forwarded to the District Magistrate, and when forwarding it the Superintendent of Police shall note on it with his own hand what steps are being taken as regards investigation or the reasons for refraining from investigation.

(3) unless investigation is refused by the Superintendent of Police under Section 157(1)(b), Criminal Procedure Code and not ordered by the District Magistrate under Section 159, or unless the District Magistrate orders a magisterial inquiry under Section 159, investigation under Section 159, Criminal Procedure Code, shall be made by a police officer selected by the Superintendent of Police and higher in rank than the officer charged;

(4) on the conclusion of the investigation and before the report required by Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code is prepared, the question whether the officer charged should or should not be sent for trial shall be decided by the Superintendent of Police. Provided that before an officer whose dismissal would require the concurrence of the Deputy Inspector General under paragraph 479 is sent for trial by the Superintendent of Police, the concurrence of the Deputy Inspector General must be obtained;

(5) the charge sheet or final report under Section 173, or Section 169, Criminal Procedure Code, as the case may be, shall be sent to the District Magistrate; if the Superintendent of Police or the Deputy Inspector General had decided against a prosecution, a note by the Superintendent of Police giving the reasons for this decision shall be endorsed on, or attached to the final report;

(6) When the reasons for not instituting a prosecution is that the charge is believed to be baseless, no further action will be necessary; if the charged is believed to be true and a prosecution is not undertaken own to the evidence being considered insufficient or for any other reasons the Superintendent may, when the final report under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, has been accepted by the District Magistrate, take departmental action as laid down in paragraph 490.

II. When information of the commission by a police officer of a noncognizable offence (including an offence under Section 29 of the Police Act) is given in the first instance to the police, the Superintendent of Police may, if he sees reason to take action, either

(a) proceed departmentally as laid down under head III of this paragraph and in paragraph 490, or (b) as an alternative to, or at any stage of the departmental proceedings, forward a report in writing to the District Magistrate with a request that he will take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b), Criminal Procedure Code, provided that report against Police Officers of having committed non-cognizable offence will (when made to the police and unless there are special reasons for desiring a magisterial inquiry or formal police investigation under the Code) ordinarily be inquired into departmental and will not ordinarily and then only if be referred to the District Magistrate until departmental inquiry is complete, a criminal prosecution is desired.

On receiving information either by means of a report in writing from the Superintendent of Police as laid down above, or otherwise as laid down in Section 190(1)(a) and (c), Criminal Procedure, of the commission by a Police Officer of a noncognizable offence, the District Magistrate may, subject to the general provisions of Chapter XIII, Part B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974) –

(a) proceed with the case under Chapter XVI Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974);

(b) order an inquiry by a Magistrate or an investigation by the police under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974); or an investigation by the police under Section 155(2);

(c) decline to proceed under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974).

In an investigation by the police is ordered, it would be made under Section 155(3), Criminal Procedure Code by an officer selected by the Superintendent of Police and higher in rank that the officer charged and all further proceedings will be exactly as laid down for cognizable cases in paragraph 486 (1), (4), (5) and (6) above.

If no investigation by the police is ordered, and the District Magistrate, after or without magisterial inquiry, declines to proceed criminally with the case, the Superintendent of Police will decide, in accordance with the principles set forth in paragraph 486 (1) (6) above and subject to the orders contained in paragraph 494, whether departmental proceedings under paragraph 490 are required.

III.- When a Superintendent of Police sees reasons to take action or information given to him, or on his own knowledge or suspicion, that a Police Officer subordinate to him committed an offence under Section 7 of the Police Act or non-cognizable offence (including an offence under Section 29 of the Police Act) of which he considers it unnecessary at that stage to forward a report in writing to the District Magistrate under Rule II above he will make or cause to be made by an officer senior in rank to the officer charged, a departmental inquiry sufficient to test the truth of the charge. On the conclusion of this inquiry he will decide whether further action is necessary and if so, whether the officer charged should be departmentally tried, or whether the District Magistrate should be moved to take cognizance of the case under the Criminal Procedure Code; provided that before the District Magistrate is moved by the Superintendent of Police to proceed criminally with a case under Section 29 of the Police Act or other non-cognizable section of the law against an Inspector or Sub-Inspector, the concurrence of the Deputy Inspector General must be obtained. Prosecution under Section 29 should rarely be instituted and only when the offence cannot be adequately dealt with under Section 7.

487. Proceeding, when a police officer negligently or willfully lets a prisoner escape.-

If any Police Officer negligently or willfully lets a prisoner escape departmental proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act will invariably be taken. The punishment awarded, unless there are unusual extenuating circumstances, will ordinarily be dismissal. Before the final punishment order in the departmental proceedings is passed, Superintendents of Police must refer to their range Deputy Inspector General in each case for a decision whether prosecution should be instituted. Cases should not be prosecuted unless definite evidence is available to show connivance or criminal negligence. B – Judicial Trial

488. Judicial trial of a criminal charge against a Police Officer.-

A criminal charge against a Police Officer, superior in rank to a head constable shall in a separation district be tried by the Additional District Magistrate, Judicial. Elsewhere, such a case will be tried by a Judicial Officer having a lease four years’ experience of Judicial work. In case a Judicial Officer with the requisite experience is not available, the District Magistrate, will keep the case on his own file and transfer it to the Additional District Magistrate, Executive.

C – Departmental Trial

489. Departmental trial of police officer u/s 7 of Police Act.-

Police Officer may be departmentally tried under Section 7 of the Police Act:

(1) whether he has or has not been tried judicially;

(2) after a magisterial inquiry under the Criminal Procedure Code;

(3) after a police investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code or a departmental inquiry under paragraph 486 (III) above.

489-A. Proceeding under section 7 of Police Act done by a Gazetted Officer.-

A Gzetted officer who is either a prosecution witness in a case or has earlier conducted a preliminary inquiry in that case shall not conduct the proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act in that case. In case the Gazetted officer concerned is a Superintendent of Police himself and there is no additional Superintendent of Police in that district, the Deputy Inspector General of Police concerned should be moved to transfer the case to some other district.

490. Special provisions relating to cases in which police officers are dealt with departmentally as the result of judicial trials or magisterial enquiries.-

Special provisions relating to cases in which Police Officer are dealt with departmentally as the result of judicial trials or magisterial enquiries are given in paragraphs 493 and 494; those relating to petty punishment cases in paragraphs 495. Subject to those provisions, the departmental trials of Police Officers must be conducted in accordance with the following rule;

(1) After the preliminary inquiry, the substance of the accusation must be reduced to the form of a charge which must be as precise as possible. The charge must be read and explained to the officer charged and a copy of the charge must be given to him.

(2) The officer charged should then be asked whether he accepts the charges framed against him or denies them. His reply, which may be oral or in writing, should be produced before the Superintendent of Police within such fixed period as the Superintendent of Police may consider reasonable and which, in the case of a written reply shall not be less than 48 hours. No detailed explanation is required from the officer charge at this stage. If the officer accepts the charge, it will not be necessary to record any prosecution evidence against him. If, however, he denies the charge, as much evidence must then be placed on record as the Superintendent of Police considers necessary to establish a charge under Section 7 of the Police Act. The evidence may be either oral or documentary and must be material to the charge. If oral –

(a) It must be direct i.e., if it is a fact which can be seen or otherwise perceived, it must be the evidence of a person who said he saw or otherwise perceived it;

(b) It must be recorded by the Superintendent of Police in the presence of the party charged who will be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. Statements recorded by a Gazetted Police Officer in the course of preliminary enquiries into the conduct of the party charged or statements recorded by a Magistrate shall be admissible and need not be recorded again if these are read out and admitted by the witnesses in the presence of the party charged and the party charged is given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.

(3)(a) When documents are relied on in support of the charge they should be put in evidence as exhibits and the officer charged must, before he is called upon to make his defence, be allowed to inspect and be given copies of such exhibits free of charge. Documents should not be put in as exhibits when their contents are inadmissible as evidence under Rule 2(a) and (b) above, for example statements of witnesses made to subordinate officers and reports of the findings and opinions of such officers are not evidence, and such statements and findings should not be exhibited. Statements made to subordinate officers may, however, be used by the Superintendent of Police to test the veracity of witnesses out, while doing so, copies of such statements should be placed as exhibits.

If the Government servant desires copies of any document or documents other than those mentioned above, and these documents are considered relevant by the inquiring officer, the copies of the same may be given to him on payment of copying charges. If the inquiring officer considers the documents required by the party charged as irrelevant or not relevant to the proceedings, he may refuse to supply copies of the same after recording in writing the reasons for so refusing.

(b) Certified copies of public records need not be proved.

(c) Evidence regarding the fact that a Police Officer lives beyond his means should be regarded as a strong presumption for the view that he accepts illegal gratification. In such cases evidence of general repute, even though it may not be strictly direct, should be admitted.

(d) Documentary evidence of experts of a formal nature may be admitted without the necessity of calling these witnesses to prove the documents. Similarly exhibits which are admitted by the accused need not be formally proved.

(4) If, after recording the prosecution evidence the Superintendent of Police considers it necessary to make any addition or alteration in the charge he will issue a copy of the amended charge to the officer charged and explain to him the implications of the amended charge. The officer charged will then be given a further opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses on points which own to the amended charge, may have become relevant.

(5) The officer charged must be invited to file a written statement of defence within such fixed period, not less than a week as the Superintendent of Police may consider reasonable. He should also at this stage be asked whether he wishes to produce any defence witnesses or to file any documentary exhibits. If so, he must, along with his written statement in defence, give the names of the witnesses, details of the documents and indicate what he expects each witness or document to prove. If the Superintendent of Police considers that the evidence of any witness or any document, which the officer charged wishes to produce in his defence, is unlikely to be material to the issue of the case, he may refuse to call such witness or allow such document to be produced in evidence, but in such case, he must briefly record his reasons for so refusing. He must then either call the remaining witnesses himself or at the request of the officer charged allow him to produce them by a given date. It should be made clear to the officer charged that he will not be allowed to prolong proceedings by vexatious delays in producing his written statement or defence witnesses and that, if he fails without good reason to produce them on the date fixed the case will proceed without them.

(6) On receipt of the written explanation of defence, the oral statement of the officer charged must also be recorded by the Superintendent of Plice in order to confirm the written explanation or to clarify any other points which may be considered necessary.

(7) The statements of defence witnesses must then be recorded by the Superintendent of Police who may cross-examine the witnesses on any points which he may consider necessary.

(8) The Superintendent of Police must write a finding. In the finding he must confine himself strictly to the subject of the charge and to the evidence on the record and must discuss every relevant plea raised by the officer charged. After arriving at a conclusion on the facts in issue, he should, if he had found the charge proved, take into consideration the character and previous conduct of the officer charged, before deciding what punishment, if any, is prima facie suitable. Should the Superintendent of Police consider that either dismissal, removal or reduction in an appropriate punishment he should in all cases in which he is empowered to inflict such punishments, supply the officer charged with a copy of his finding and call upon him to show cause within a reasonable time (which shall not be less than one week) against the imposition of these punishments. It should be made clear to the officer charged that any representation that he may make in this respect will be considered before any order of punishment is passed.

(9) In all cases in which the Superintendent of Police proposes the dismissal or removal of Inspectors or Sub-Inspector he shall forward the cases to the Deputy Inspector of Police through the District Magistrate for final orders.

(10) When the Deputy Inspector General considers that the appropriate punishment is likely to be dismissal, removal or reduction, he shall cause a copy of the finding of the Superintendent of Police to be delivered to the officer charged and shall simultaneously call upon him to show cause against the imposition of these punishments. The officer charged will be asked to submit his written representation, if any, within such fixed period, not less than one week, as the Deputy Inspector General considers reasonable. In all cases the Deputy Inspector General must also record the oral statement of the officer charged before he writes his finding and order.

(11) In any case in which the Superintendent of Police considers that special circumstances justify a departure from any of these rules, he should record reasons for his decision, and in any such case it will be for the Superintendent of Police to show in his finding that the officer charged has not been prejudiced by this departure from the usual procedure.

(12) The officer charged shall not be represented by counsel in any proceedings instituted under these rules.

(13) All or any of the functions exercisable by a Superintendent of Police under these rules may be exercised by a police authority superior to a Superintendent of Police.

(14) The Inspector General of Police or a Deputy Inspector General of Police may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, either on his own motion or on request from an officer holding a departmental trial under Section 7 of the Police Act, transfer a case to any other officer of corresponding rank.

491. Procedure followed by officer, when conducting departmental trials.-

The officers holding the posts enumerated in paragraph 479 (f) shall allow the procedure prescribed in paragraph 490 when conducting departmental trials, and their orders shall, with the concurrence of the Superintendent of Police, have the same executive force in all cases as the orders of the Superintendent of Police except in cases in which the officer conducting the proceedings recommends the dismissal or removal of constable or under-officer. In such cases the Superintendent of Police shall (if this has not already been done) give the officer a copy of the finding of the Inquiring officer and ask him to show cause within a reasonable time (which shall not be less than one week) why such punishment should not be imposed. All orders of dismissal or removal of an under officer or constable must be passed by the Superintendent of Police himself and any case in which a Superintendent of Police concurs in a proposal to dismiss or remove a Sub-Inspector of any breach of the force must be forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General of the range for orders.

492. The result of judicial trial of a police officer should be awaited.-

Whenever a police officer has been judicially tried, the Superintendent must await the decision of the judicial appeal, if any, before deciding whether further departmental action is necessary.

493. When a police officer tried judicially, the S.P. has no power to re-examine.-

It will not be permissible for the Superintendent of Police in the course of a departmental proceeding against a Police Officer who has been tried judicially to re-examine the truth of any facts in issue at his judicial trial, and the finding of the Court on these facts be taken as final.

Thus, (a) if the accused has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment, no departmental trial will be necessary, as the fact that he has been found deserving of rigorous imprisonment must be taken as conclusively providing his unfitness for the discharge of his duty within the meaning of Section 7 of the Police Act. In such cases the Superintendent of Police will without further proceedings ordinarily pass an order of dismissal, obtaining the formal order of the Deputy Inspector General when necessary under paragraph 479(a). Should he wish to do otherwise he must refer the matter to the Deputy Inspector General of the range for orders.  

(b) If the accused has been convicted but sentenced to a punishment less than of rigorous imprisonment a departmental trial will be necessary, if further action is thought desirable, but the question in issue at this trial will be merely (1) whether the offence of which the accused has been convicted amounts to an offence under Section 7 of the Police Act, (2) if so, what punishment should be imposed. In such cases the Superintendent of Police will (i) call upon the accused to show cause why any particular penalty should not be inflicted on him, (ii) record anything the accused officer has to urge against such penalty without allowing him to dispute the findings of the Court, and (iii) write a finding and order in the ordinary way dealing with any plea raised by the accused officer which is relevant to (1) and (2) above.

(c) If the accused has been judicially acquitted or discharged, and the period for filing an appeal has elapsed and / or no appeal has been filed the Superintendent of Police must at once reinstate him if he has been suspended; but should the findings of the Court not be inconsistent with the view that the accused has been guilty of negligence in, or unfitness for, the discharge of his duty within the meaning of Section 7 of the Police Act, the Superintendent of Police may refer the matter to the Deputy Inspector General and ask for permission to try the accused departmentally for such negligence or unfitness.

494. Procedure, when an inquiry of the conduct of a police officer held by a D.M. or S.D.M.-

When a Police Officer of or below the rank of Inspector has not been criminally prosecuted, but an inquiry into his conduct has been held by a District Magistrate or by a subordinate Magistrate whose finding has been accepted by the District Magistrate, the accused must be tried departmentally by the Superintendent of Police, if he does not accept the findings of fact of the Magistrate shall be bound at the request of the District Magistrate to refer the question to the Deputy Inspector General of Police.

Orderly Room

495. Orderly room for constables and head constables.-

Report of petty breaches of discipline and trifling cases of misconduct by members of the force not above the rank of head constable, will, as far as possible, be inquired into and disposed of in orderly room if the offender is at headquarters. The Superintendent of Police or other Gazetted officer in charge at headquarters should hold orderly room in the lines of Kotwali on two or more fixed days in the week The orderly room register, Form NO. 133, will take the place of Section 7, Form No. 133 in such cases. The reserve Inspector will fill up the four columns of thi register and assemble the persons whose attendance is necessary. The punishments enumerated in paragraphs 478 (c) (d) and (f) may be given after proceedings in Form No. 103. Any member of the force will be permitted to attend orderly room to make a personal application or representation, provided that he can be spared from duty and intimates his intention in writing to the officer to whom he is immediately subordinate. If the officer is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to a personal hearing he must initial the intimation and instruct him to attend orderly room with it; if he withholds permission, he must report his reasons in writing to the Superintendent.

Suspension

496. Suspension of police officers.-

All Police Officers are liable to suspension during a departmental or judicial inquiry into a charge of misconduct. The suspension of an officer may be ordered by the authority who has the power to give him any form of departmental punishment, e.g., the Superintendent of Police may suspend an inspector even though he cannot dismiss him. The Superintendent of Police should suspend until the trial is over, any Police Officer whose prosecution has been ordered by him or by the Deputy Officer whose prosecution has been ordered by him or by the Deputy Inspector General, or who is prosecuted as a result of a magisterial inquiry. If a prosecution is instituted by a private person on complaint, the Superintendent of Police must decide whether the circumstances of the case justify the suspension of the accused.

The suspending authority will pass provisional orders at the time of suspension, fixing the rate of suspension allowance under Fundamental Rule 53 (c) and also for the payment of horse allowance up to a limit of three months, in the case of an officer who maintains a horse, the officer will be at liberty to dispose of his horse.

497. Head constables and constables under suspension may be required to live in lines.-

Head constables and constables under suspension may be required by the Superintendent of Police to live in lines but should not be subject to stricter restraint that officers of their own rank who are in the lines on duty. They should be allowed to leave the lines to consult their legal advisers or to prepare their defence. The same orders apply in the case of sub-inspectors under suspension, provided there is suitable accommodation for them in the lines. If a police officer who is placed under suspension is required to live in the Police Lines, the order of suspension must contain instruction to this effect. These orders do not apply in the case of a police officer who is released on bail by a Court of Law and placed under suspension, but the Superintendent of Police may order such an officer to keep him informed of his movements.

498. Payment after the reinstatement of a police officer.-

The authority who orders the re-instatement of a police officer after suspension must, subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Regulations and Fundamental Rules, direct at what rate he is to be paid during the period of suspension, and whether the period is to count for pension. This order will not affect the grant of horse allowance to the officer which is governed by the third sub-paragraph 496 above.

The authority who order the re-instatement of a police officer after suspension must confirm or revise the original order so far as it relates to payment of pay and allowance during the period of suspension according to the result of the case and subject to the provisions of Fundamental Rule-54. The orders regarding the payment of horse allowance will not need revision as this allowance will be drawn up to a period of three months irrespective of the result of the case.

If on appeal or revision a police officer, who has been dismissed or removed, is ordered to be re-instated and retried but fails to rejoin duties within a fortnight from the date of the receipt of the order, the authority empowered to dismiss, remove or reduce the person in rank may presume that it is not reasonably practicable to give the said officer an opportunity of showing cause, and may, after recording the reasons in writing take proceedings in absentia.

499. No conveyance allowance may be paid for the period of suspension.-

No conveyance allowance as distinct from horse allowance may be paid for the period of suspension without the sanction of the Deputy Inspector General in cases in which the entertainment of a petition for revision or appeal is within his competence, or of the Governor in Council or Inspector General of Police in other cases. Officers passing orders about the payment of salary need refer the question of paying conveyance allowance as distinct from horse allowance to higher authority only if they recommend payment; suspension automatically causes withdrawal of this allowance unless orders are passed to the contrary.

500. Censuring the conduct of a police officer.-

(a) Where a court censures the conduct of a police officer an inquiry must be made immediately into the points which the court had held deserving of censure, without waiting for the result of an appeal, if any.

(b) If the officer whose conduct is censured is a Superintendent of Police the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the range will conduct the inquiry. On completion thereof, he will forward a report to the Commissioner.

(c) If the Commissioner considers that no further action is necessary, he will record his opinion and forward a copy of the report of the Deputy Inspector General and his opinion to Government and sending similar copies to the Inspector General. If he considers that further action is desired, he will record his opinion and forward the papers to the Inspector General and send a copy to Government.

(d) If the officer whose conduct is censured is below the rank of Superintendent of Police, the Superintendent of Police of the district will conduct the inquiry, either in person or through a gazetted officer. On completion thereof, he will forward a report to the District Magistrate.

(e) If the District Magistrate considers that no further action is necessary he will record his opinion and forward copies of the Superintendent of Police’s report and his opinion to Government through the Commissioner sending similar copies to the Deputy Inspector General of the range. If he considers that further action is necessary he will record his opinion and return the papers to the Superintendent of Police, sending copies to Government. The Superintendent of Police, will in due course intimate to the District Magistrate the action which he has taken.

501. Defence of the Act of police officer done in his official capacity, will be defended at the expense of the State.-

(1) Every Police Officer against whom civil or criminal proceedings are instituted otherwise than by the Government in respect of any act purporting to have been done in his official capacity will be defended at the expense of the State when he desires to be so defended and it appears to Government that he has acted honestly and with due care and attention.

(2) The attention of all Police Officers is drawn to the provision of Section 42 of the Police Act. They are reminded, however, that, in so far as civil suits and proceedings are concerned, that section is no longer in force, and such suits and proceedings are now governed by the ordinary law of limitation embodied in the Limitation Act, 1963.

(3) Where the orders of Government on an application of an officer for his defence by Government are not received one week before the date fixed for the hearing of the case against him, the officer should apply to the court for an adjournment. If the court does not sanction the applications for adjournment, the officer will make his own arrangements for his defence and may apply through the Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, to the Inspector Generla of Police to be given an advance not exceeding Rs.300 in amount to meet the expenses of his defence.

Such advance, if sanctioned, will be recoverable, or adjustable against the amount, if any, which may, on the conclusion of the case, be sanctioned by Government, for payment to the officer under the provisions of paragraphs 501(7)(e) and 501(8)(i). Simple interest at 5 per cent per annum will be charged on the balances outstanding on the last day of each month. Applications for such advances will be in the form of an agreement to be executed by the borrower, to repay, if necessary, by instalments as determined by the Inspector General of Police, from the pay or pension of the recipient. At the time of sanction of the advance, the Inspector General of Police will determine the amount of each monthly instalment in which, should the advance become recoverable, it will be refunded. The amount of each instalment should be in whole rupees except in the case of the last instalment and should be determined in such a way that, in the event of full recovery being necessary, the number of instalments should be reasonable having regard to the amount of advance sanctioned and the monthly pay of the recipient. Interest will be recoverable in one or more instalments or the same, or nearly the same, amount as the instalments of the principal, after the principal has been completely recovered.

(4) Where a case in which Government have defended an officer is successful and the officer is awarded costs, damages or compensation, the expenditure incurred by Government up to the limit of such costs, damages or compensation as may be recovered by him will be refunded by him.

(5) In the case of a police officer belonging to the Criminal Investigation Department or to the Railway Police, the Magistrate of the district in which the case is instituted shall be the District Magistrate for the purpose of the following rules.

(6) Whenever under these rules a communication or report is required to be made by a police officer to the Collector or District Magistrate such communication or report must in all cases where the Police Officer is subordinate to a Superintendent of Police be submitted through the Superintendent of Police.

E – Civil Suits and Proceedings

7(a) Under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure no suit can be brought against a public officer in respect of any purporting to have been done by such public officer in his official capacity, without two months’ previous notice, which must be delivered to him or left at his office.

(b) Any officer who receives notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure of a threatened suit against him shall, unless he is prepared to admit to the claim, at once inform his superior officer and shall without any delay prepare as full a narrative as possible of the fact which have led to the notice and of the defence which he would propose in the event of suit being filed. He will then forward the narrative to the Collector who will obtain the opinion of the Government Pleader. The Government Pleader may obtain from the officer concerned any further information that may be necessary for expressing an opinion. If the notice be in the form of a plaint, the Government Pleader will prepare a draft written statement. The Collector will forward the narrative with the Government Pleaders’ opinion and the draft written statement (if any) direct to the Legal Remembrancer, taking care that the papers reach the latter officer at least three weeks before the expiry of the period of grace contained in the notice, and will at the same time report whether it is probable in the threatened suit will be brought or not. The Legal Remembrancer will, after communicating with the Inspector General of Police, obtain the orders of the Government as to whether the suit should be defended at their expenses. In case the Government undertake the defence of the suit, the procedure to be followed, if the suit is filed will be the same in every respect as in a suit against the Government.

(c) If a suit is brought against a public officer in respect of an act purporting to have been done in his official capacity, without the previous notice required by Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he should unless sufficient time has been given for the order of the Government to be obtained, give immediate notice to the Collector of the district, who will instruct the Government Pleader to apply for an adjournment.

(d) Where a superior Police Officer receives information under the provisions of paragraph 501 (7) (b), above of a threatened civil suit against a Police Officer subordinate to him, he shall immediately report the fact and submit a brief narrative of the circumstances through the proper channel to the Inspector General.

(e) In any case in which either the Government are not prepared to undertake the defence of the suit or the officer has engaged his own counsel under the provisions of paragraph 501 (3), the Government, if satisfied that the officer acted honestly and with due care and attention, may defray any reasonable charge which may have incurred in defending himself or in satisfying any decree which may have been passed against him or in settling the matter out of court.

(f) In a civil suit if a decree is passed against the Police Officer, Government will not be bound to pay the decretal amount and will in addition have the right to recover the costs incurred by Government in defending the suit.

Criminal Proceedings

(8) (a) In the case of criminal prosecutions instituted against superior officers, the provisions of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, are applicable and will be followed.

(b) When a Police Officer is accused of committing an offence on the ground of some act done by him in his official capacity, he shall at once inform his superior officer and unless he desires to be defended at the expenses of Government in accordance with the following provisions, shall make its own arrangements for his defence, either with or without the aid of counsel. The Superintendent of Police or other superior officer will at once inform the Inspector General through the proper channel of every case in which a Police Officer has been accused of committing an offence.

(c) A Police Officer accused of having committed an offence on the ground of some act by him in his official capacity may apply to be defended at the expense of Government. Such application should in the first place be made to the Superintendent of Police. If the charge is of such a trivial nature that it can be adequately met by the personal appearance of the accused officer, the Superintendent of Police will advise the officer to defend himself in person. In other cases the Superintendent of Police will forward the application through the District Magistrate to the Inspector General, together with his opinion whether or not the officer should be defended at Government expense. If he is of opinion that officer should be defended, and if for any reason, the desirable, the Superintendent of Police will recommend the appointment of counsel at Government expense. When forwarding the application to the Inspector General, the District Magistrate should state whether in his opinion the accused officer should be defended by the Public Prosecutor or failing him by counsel at Government expense or should be required to engage his own counsel for his defence. The Inspector General of Police on receipt of District Magistrate’s recommendation will obtain the order of Government as to whether the accused officer may be defended by the Public Prosecutor or by counsel at Government expense.

(d) When a police officer is defended at Government expense under this paragraph his defence shall, in any case in which he is committed for trial by a Court of Session, be deemed to cover his defence both during the inquiry in the Magistrate’s Court and during the trial in the Court of Session. When a Police Officer whose defence has been undertaken at Government expense is discharged by the Magistrate, but has again to defend himself on an application for revision of Magistrate’s orders, the officer may continue to be defended at Government expense with the sanction of the Inspector General. The Inspector General, may, however, refuse the defence of the officer at Government expense in respect of such revision application if the Magistrate’s order or other information in his possession discloses sufficient ground for such refusal.

(e) When any person who is prosecuted by the police brings a cross case against the Police Officer responsible for his prosecution the accused officer may be defended by the Public Prosecutor in the lower court and by the District Government – Counsel in the Sessions Court; provided that the defence of the officer is fully consistent with the theory of the prosecution in the case instituted by the police.

(f) If a police officer is convicted of the offence of which is is accused and desires to appeal, he must engage his own counsel but in such case the Government may, in accordance with the following rules, subsequently pay reasonable expenses for his defence.

(g) At the conclusion of the inquiry or trial in the Magistrate’s court, or the trial in the Session Court, of a Police Officer accused of committing an offence on the ground of some act done by him in his official capacity, or after the decision of an appeal, if any, in a case in which a Police Officer has been convicted his superior officer will at once send a copy of the judgment with any other relevant papers to the District Magistrate together with his opinion whether or not the officer acted honestly and with due care and attention.

(h) The District Magistrate will forward the judgment with the opinion of the superior officer to the Inspector General of Police, together with his own opinion whether or not the officer acted honestly and with due care and attention. Whether or not the District Magistrate considers that the officer acted honestly and with due care and attention, he will in every case state what in his opinion should be regarded as the reasonable expenses of the defence.

(i) In making his recommendation as to what may be regarded as reasonable expenses, the District Magistrate will be governed by the following principles :

(1) The sanctioned rates of counsel’s fees payable to the Government Pleader should be kept in mind and the maximum fee recommended should not exceed Rs. 50 for a full day’s work and Rs.25 for a half day’s work. Work for over 3 hours in any court or courts will count as a full day’s work, work for 3 hours or less will count as a half day’s work.

(2) Not more than one counsel should be paid for each hearing.

(3) No payment should be made for extra expenses incurred by the engagement of a counsel outside the district. If in any case the District Magistrate considers that these principles would operate unfairly, he should justify a departure from them.

(j) The Inspector General of Police on receipt of the District Magistrate’s recommendation will obtain the orders of the Government as to the amount, if any, which should be paid to the officer for the expenses of his defence.

(k) Whenever in a criminal case a Police Officer is convicted, Government may realise from him the cost incurred by the Government in his defence. In such a case Government will further not be bound to pay the fine if imposed by the Court on the Police Officer though the case may initially have been defended at Government expense.

502. Procedure, when a medal winner police officer is convicted.-

When any Police Officer possessing one or more of the following medals.- A Field Service Medal, a King’s Police Medal, an Indian Police Medal, a Commemoration Medal – is convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment the Superintendent of Police should report the fact to the Inspector General of Police for consideration, whether the medal or medals should be forfeited on submitting his report the Superintendent of Police should give the full fact of the case and forward a copy of the judgment of the court.

503. Procedure, when a police officer is arrested on a criminal charge.-

If a Police Officer, not being on leave, is arrested on a criminal charge in a district other than that to which he is posted, the Superintendent of the district in which he has been arrested shall inform the Superintendent of the district to which he is posted.

504. Certificate of discharge to every officer leaving the force.-

Every officer leaving the force is entitled to a certificate of discharge in Form No. 26. The cause of leaving the force should be stated (e.g., dismissed, resignation, etc.) but the reasons of the dismissal etc. should not be inserted except at the wish of the applicant.

505. Resignation of a police officer.-

A Police Officer of the rank of Inspector or below can resign his office on giving in writing two months’ notice of his intention to resign but he shall not withdraw from the duties of his office until such time his resignation has been formally accepted by the appropriate authority and he has fully discharged any debt by him as such Police Officer to Government or to any police fund :

Provided that such a resignation may be accepted by the authority with effect from a date prior to the date of expiry of the notice :

Provided further that the resignation of a police officer whose conduct is under inquiry or who is being proceeded against departmentally under Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 (Act No. V of 1861) or tried in a court of law for any offence may, in the discretion of such authority, not being accepted until such time the final orders are passed as a result of such inquiry, proceedings or trial as the case may be.

506. The police officer, whose conduct is under inquiry, may not be granted leave.-

Leave may not be granted to a Police Officer whose conduct is under inquiry or is likely to become in the near future subject of inquiry, except on medical certificate signed by the Civil Surgeon of the district to which the Police Officer is posted. But if such Police Officer is under suspension, no leave of any kind (including leave on medical ground) may be granted.

507. Conditional resignations should ordinarily not be accepted.-

Sometimes an officer couples with a request for leave, or for redress, an offer to resign his appointment if the leave or redress be not granted. Conditional resignations of this kind should ordinarily not be accepted. Orders should be passed only in regard to the application for leave or redress. If the officer is dissatisfied with the orders passed he may appeal to higher authority or tender an unconditional resignation. [Construction of references]

[507-A. Construction of reference.-

In this Chapter, any reference to ‘Inspector General’ or ‘Inspector-General of Police’ wherever occurring, shall –

(i) in relation to the members of the Pradeshik Armed Constabulary be construed as a reference to the Inspector General of Police, Pradeshik Armed Constabulary, Uttar Pradesh;

(ii) in relation to the personal of the Intelligence Department be construed as a reference to the Inspector-General of Police, Intelligence, Uttar Pradesh;

(iii) in relation to the personnel of Criminal Investigation Department be construed as a reference to the Inspector-General of Police. Criminal Investigation Department, Uttar Pradesh

(iv) in relation to the personnel of Training Institutions of Police Department be construed as a reference to the Inspector General of Police, Training, Uttar Pradesh

(v) in relation to the personnel of the Government Railway Police be construed as a reference to the inspector-General of Police, Railways, Uttar Pradesh]