KANTA PARSHAD SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioner was a Sub-inspector. He was posted at the Roshanara Police Station. On 9-7-71 he arrested at Maurice Nagar a person named Din Dayal. Din Dayal was prosecuted under Ss. 112/ 117 of the Bombay Police Act. The case against him later on was withdrawn.

(2.) Din Dayal after his arrest made a complaint on 12-7-71 that he was maliciously arrested and was compelled to pay a bribe of Rs. 250.00 to the petitioner to obtain his freedom. On this complaint the Superintendent of Police wrote a letter to the District Magistrate, Delhi, on 20-10-71, slating that the complaint against the petitioner required to be investigated under the provisions of the Punjab Police Rule 16.38(1) and enquiring whether investigation into the complaint of Din Dayal should be conducted by a police officer or a Magistrate, First Glass.

(3.) On 4th November, 1971, Mr. A.A. Khwaja, Additional District Magistrate passed an order. He directed that the inquiry be made by a police officer. After the completion of the inquiry under the Punjab Police Rule 16.38(1) by the inspector of the vigilance branch, the Superintendent of Police enquired whether necessary action under Punjab Police Rule 16.38(2) shoulde taken against the petitioner or not. On24-7-1972MissVinecta Singh, Additional District Magistrate, made an order under Punjab Police Rule 16.38(2) that the petitioner be dealt with departmentally. Thereafter, a summary of allegations was given to the petitioner on 28th December, 1972. The petitioner brought this writ petition on 12th March, 1973 questioning the validity of the two orders made by the Additional District Magistrate one by Mr. A.A. Khwaja dated 4th November, 1971 and the other by Miss Vineeta Singh dated 24-7-1972.