NANJAPPA Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to call up the records of the case ending with the order of respondent 1, No. Pun./C (1) 383/61, dated 3 December, 1962, where under he set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur in No. J. 1/MAG/666/1960-61 and dismissed the petitioner from service and quash the aforementioned order of respondent 1 and further to issue a direction to the respondents to restore him back to service without any break.

(2.) The petitioner was a constable working in Chickmagalur district. As per his proceedings No. Pun. C. (1) 37/60, the Superintendent of Police, Chickmagalur, framed charges against him, held an enquiry against him and dismissed him from service on 3 January, 1961. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner went up in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur, under S. 27 of the Mysore Police Act. The Deputy Commissioner was pleased to accept his appeal and set aside the order of the Superintendent of Police on 30 September, 1961. The Deputy Commissioner was of the view that no case was made out against the petitioner. Several months thereafter, respondent 1, purporting to act under rule 181 of the Mysore Police Manual, Vol. I, called up the records of the case and, after giving the petitioner an opportunity to make his submissions, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and restored that of the Superintendent of Police. The order in question gives no reason whatsoever in its support. In the order after setting out the facts of the case this is what he stated :

(3.) From the observations quoted above, it is quite clear that respondent 1 was of the opinion that the appellate authority had no competence to rely on the defence evidence in judging the merits of the case. There is no support in law for this view. Respondent 1 nowhere says that the findings reached by the Deputy Commissioner are unsupported by evidence, nor did he give any reason why he prefers the prosecution evidence to that of the defence. He appears to be of the view that it is for the delinquent officer to prove that he is not guilty and not for the department to prove that he is guilty. We are constrained to say that even elementary principles of jurisprudence were lost sight of by respondent 1 in assessing the merits of the case.