SNANJUNDESWAR Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before us was a Sub-Inspector of Police and he was in the II Grade. He has been reduced to the rank of a Jamadar for two years by order of the Government dated 24-8-1957. It is this order which the petitioner is challenging in this writ petition.

(2.) In appears that in June 1953 four charges were framed against him. An enquiry was made on those charges. During the course of the made on those charges. During the course of the enquiry another additional charge was added and the said charge was also enquired into. 25 witnesses were called in support of the charges. It is not disputed that some of the statements of those witnesses were not recorded in the presence of the officer who conducted the enquiry. The statements of those witnesses were recorded by the Police Inspector behind the back of the petitioner. Those statements were produced before the enquiring officer and it appears from the record that the same were read over to the witnesses and thereafter they were allowed to be cross-examined by the petitioner. The petitioner in support of his case called seven witnesses whose statements both in examination-in-chief and in cross-examination were recorded before the enquiry officer. On the conclusion of the enquiry the enquiring officer gave his report. He held that charge 1 and 5 were proved, but the rest of the charges were not proved, but the rest of the charges were not proved. On the question of punishment to be inflicted, the enquiring officer recommended that in view being taken and reverting him as III Grade Sub-Inspector on Rs. 80/- for a period of two years with a pre-condition that his promotion to the next higher grade will depend on his good conduct during that period would meet the ends of justice. It appears that the said report was forwarded to the Government by the Special Officer, Efficiency Audit. It also appears that the said Special Officer in forwarding the report of the inquiring officer also made his own report in connection with the enquiry. He reported that Charge 1 was proved on then state of evidence which was adduced at the enquiry. We called for that Special Officer's report and on perusal thereof we find that the Special Officer has given his own reasons for coming to the said conclusion. He has also accepted the reasoning and the conclusion of the enquiring officer. When the matter came up before the Government it, in its order dated 28-4-1955 observed that the Special Officer, Efficiency Audit, has stated that the first charge of having received as illegal gratification bags of paddy is proved beyond doubt and the charge is a grave offence involving moral turpitude. The Government further stated in its said order that the Special officer has recommended that the delinquent may be reduced as a Jamedar for two years with a severe warning. Having recited these facts the Government by its said order ordered, agreeing with the findings of the Special Officer, Efficiency Audit, that the petitioner be reduced as a Jamadar for two years and that his reinstatement after the period specified is conditional on his good work and conduct in the meanwhile. It should be noted that before making this order the Government did not supply the petitioner with a copy of the report of the enquiring officer nor did it issue a show case notice to the petitioner as required by Art. 311 of the Constitution. The petitioner having brought this fact to the notice of the government the Government by its order dated 12-3-1956 withdrew its previous order dated 28-4-1955 and gave a fresh notice to show case, to the petitioner. In the said notice it was stated that the Government having been satisfied that the charge that the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of krishnarajanagar Kasaba accepted on 24-1-1953, 3 pallas and 15 1/4 seers of paddy from Kurubally Veeranna and Siddamma of Kalyanapura village for showing favour in the disposal of a complaint against them by Chikkaveorathappa, having been proved, propose to reduce him as a Jamadar for two years. The petitioner was directed within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice to show-case as to why the said punishment should not be imposed on him. The petitioner on receipt of this notice asked the Government to supply him several documents as mentioned in his letter dated 30-3-1956. The said documents, copies of which the petitioner wanted from the Government, included the report of the enquiring officer and also the report of the Special Officer. The petitioner also asked for the report of the Public Service Commission whom the Government had consulted in this matter. The Government did not supply him with any of those documents except the report of the enquiring officer. In its letter dated 11-4-1956 addressed to the Petitioner the Government stated that that was not the stage of enquiry and what had been equired of the petitioner in the show-cause notice dated 12-3-1956 was to show cause, in view of the charge proved against him, as to why he should be reduced as Jamadar for 2 years. It should be mentioned that the report of the enquiring officer was not furnished on that date. It was furnished subsequently on 6-4-1957. The petitioner thereafter addressed a number of letters to the Government in which he insisted on production of the said documents including the report of the Special Officer. The Government, finally, by its order dated 24-8-1957 reduced the petitioner to the rank of a Jamadar for two years. The actual order which the Government made was that the petitioner be reduced as a Jamadar for two years and that his reinstatement after the period specified is conditioned on his good work and conduct as Jamadar. In the other itself the Government stated that the Special Officers. Efficiency Audit, had stated that the first charge of having received as illegal gratification 4 bags of paddy from Sri Veeranna and Siddamma to send a favourable report in connection with an enquiry against them is proved beyond doubt and the charge is a grave offence involving moral turpitude. The Government Public Service Commission has agreed that the Public Service Commission has agreed with the Special Officer, Efficiency Audit, in regard to the punishment to be awarded to the Sub-Inspector. In the second paragraph of the order it is stated as follows: "Government have carefully examined the records as well as the explanation furnished by the Sub-Inspector in reply to the show-cause notice and agree with the findings of the Special Officer Efficiency Audit. The previous conduct of the Sub-Inspector was not above board Government also agree with the opinion of the Public service Commission who have accepted the recommendation of the Special Officer, Efficiency Adult, and direct that Sri S. Nanjundeswar, Sub-Inspector of Police, be reduced as a Jamadar for two years and that his reinstatement after the period specified is conditioned on his good work and conduct as Jamadar. It is this order that the petitioner is challenging in this writ petition.

(3.) The learned Advocate appearing in support of this petition placed his client's case on several grounds. In the first place he urged that the procedure adopted at the said enquiry was contrary to principles of natural justice and also to the rules framed under the General Circulars and Standing Orders and is therefore liable to be set aside. He contended that the evidence of all the witnesses in support of the charges should have been recorded in the presence of the enquiring officer. As I have already mentioned, the statements of some of those witnesses were not recorded before the officer who conducted the enquiry and the learned Advocate's contention was that this was not permissible under the rules and is also contrary to principles of natural justice. I my opinion, this contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is sound and should be given effect to. Rule 245 of the General Circulars and Standing Orders clearly provides that the oral and documentary evidence in support of the charges should be placed on record on a fixed date of hearing in the presence of the officer accused who may be given the right to cross-examine the witnesses, and thereafter the accused officer should be required to make his defence orally or in writing as he shall prefer. This rule, in my opinion, leaves no room for doubt that all evidence in support of the charges should be recorded on the date of hearing and in the presence of the officer accused. The learned Government Pleader no doubt contended that the rule permits evidence to be recorded at any place provided the same is filed on the record on the date of hearing. In other words his contention was that the words, "be placed on record" means 'brought on record". We are wholly unable to accept that contention. It is clear, in our opinion, from the wordings of the said the fixed date of hearing and in the presence of the officer accused. We are unable to hold that the expression used in the rule viz., "evidence in support of the charges should be placed on record" means that the same should be filed on record on the date of hearing. That this, cannot be the true interpretation of the said rule is made more clear by the provisions of rule 247 of the said Rules. Rule 247 provides that the enquiring officer should take notes in English of all the oral evidence, which should be read aloud to each witness by whom the same was given. There cannot be, in my opinion, any meaning in saying that the enquiring officer should take notes in English of all the oral evidence, unless the said oral evidence is required to be given in the presence of the officer. In my opinion, rule 247 does not mean that the enquiring officer should take notes of the evidence already taken by some other person. I am clear in my opinion that the contention of the learned Government Pleader on this point cannot at all be accepted as sound.