SHIVABASAPPA SHIVAPPA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution came up before this Court for hearing on 26 March, 1959. This Court allowed the petition and set aside the punishment imposed on the petitioner on the sole ground that the inquiry held against the petitioner was vitiated because, the examination-in-chief of the witnesses examined during the inquiry was not made in the presence of the petitioner. Aggrieved by that order, the State took up the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the decision of this Court and remanded the case for disposing of the questions which had not been considered at the earlier hearing. The decision of the Supreme Court is in State of Mysore v. Shivabasappa Shivappa [1964 - I L.L.J. 24]. In the last paragraph of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed thus :

(2.) It is not necessary to set out the facts of the case in detail. Those facts are available from the decision of this Court rendered on 26 March, 1959. But in order to make our order self-contained, we may briefly refer to the material facts.

(3.) The petitioner was a sub-inspector of police in the former Bombay State. On 24 May 1954 certain charges were framed against him on the allegation that he was guilty of dereliction of duty. The District Superintendent of Police, Belgaum, inquired into those charges. After the enquiry the District Superintendent of Police issued on 14 December, 1954 a notice to the petitioner proposing to reduce his salary by Rs. 5 per month and that for a period of two years. The petitioner made his submissions as regards the proposed punishment. After taking into consideration the submissions made by the petitioner, the District Superintendent of Police ordered, by his order dated 5 January, 1955, the reduction of the salary of the petitioner from Rs. 125 to Rs. 120 per month for a period of one year. Unfortunately for the petitioner, he appealed against the order to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police who not merely dismissed his appeal on 8 September, 1955, but at the same time issued a notice to him requiring him to show cause why he should not be removed from service. After considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police passed orders on 5 July, 1956 removing the petitioner from the force. The petitioner's appeal to the Government as against the order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police was unsuccessful. Ultimately he came up to this Court in Writ Petition No. 41 of 1958.