SYED HASSAN ALI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Art. 226 of the 226, the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to quash by the issue of a writ of certiorari or and other appropriate writ or order, as the case may be, the orders of the Inspector-General of Police (respondent 2) dated 17 December, 1960 dismissing the petitioner from service, and the order of the Government (respondent 1) dated 21 March, 1962 confirming the said order of dismissal.

(2.) The petitioner was a sub-inspector of police at Gogi in Gulbarga district. On 20 November, 1957 a memo of charges was given to the petitioner alleging that he had obtained illegal gratification from villagers. The petitioner I alleged to have taken illegal gratification from the five persons mentioned in the said charge-memo. On 26 June, 1958 a second memo of charges was issued against the petitioner alleging gross negligence in the discharge of his duties and accepting illegal gratification. The first eight counts related to gross negligence of duty and the ninth count was that he demanded and received illegal gratification of Rs. 325 from one Rayappa. When these charges were pending enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police on an earlier charge framed against him for having behaved in a high-handed and unmannerly way against one Veeraswami. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Inspector-General of Police, however, altered the punishment form dismissal to one of reduction by two stages in the time-scale for a period of two years with adverse effect on future increments. Thereafter the enquiry, in respect of the two memos of charges mentioned above, was taken up against the petitioner and Sri Billimoria, Deputy Superintendent of Police, was appointed enquiry officer. The petitioner objected to the enquiry by Sri Billimoria on the ground that he was prejudiced against him. Then another Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sri Mallappa, was appointed as the enquiry officer. As the petitioner did not appear before him, the enquiry was proceeded with ex parte. On an appeal filed by the petitioner to the Inspector-General of police, the Inspector-General of Police remanded the matter for fresh enquiry and that all the witnesses should be examined in the presence of the petitioner and he should be given an opportunity to cross- examine them. He directed that the enquiry should be conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gulbarga Division. As this latter officer was transferred, the enquiry was conducted by Sri Dhruva Rao, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Yadgir. Thirty prosecution witnesses were examined before the enquiry officer and the petitioner examined five defence witnesses. The enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of counts 3 and 4 in the memo of charges dated 20 November, 1957. Count 3 related to accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 100 from Rangappa. With regard to the memo of charges dated 26 June, 1958, he found the petitioner guilty of all the nine counts. Counts 1 to 8 related to gross negligence of duty. Count 9, which was held proved, was that he kept Harijan Rayappa in custody and would not release him unless he paid him Rs. 325; Rayappa had to raise this amount and pay the petitioner by selling his two bullocks and his cart.

(3.) Under the Hyderabad Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1955, the Inspector-General of Police being the authority competent to dismiss the petitioner, the papers were submitted to the Inspector-General of Police. After going through the papers, the Inspector-General of Police, on 23 April, 1960, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation and demanded a personal hearing. The Inspector-general of Police gave him a personal hearing on 24 November, 1960. The petitioner also presented a further written representation. The Inspector-General of Police, after going through the papers, by his order dated 17 December, 1960, found the petitioner guilty on counts 3 and 4 in the memo of charges dated 20 November, 1957 and on all the nine counts in the charge-memo dated 26 June, 1958 He dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner went up in appeal to the Government and the Government of Mysore, by its order dated 21 March, 1962, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of dismissal of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the said order passed by the Inspector-General of Police dismissing him from service and the order of the Government confirming the same, and prays that the said two orders may be quashed.