SHER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 160-D of 1962, 161-D of 1962 and 269-D of 1962.

(2.) The petitioners at the material time belonged to the Delhi Armed Police. The allegation against them was that on the night between 25th and 26th June, 1960 while they were on duty to check smuggling at Post Isa Pur in P. S. Najafgarh, they stopped four 'persons, namely, Nand Ram, Mir Singh, Zila Singh and Nathu who were residents of village Gohana District Rohtak and who had been taking tobacco leaves on the camels from Delhi State to Punjab State. The constables demanded a sum of Rs. 800.00 as illegal gratification from these villagers for allowing them to take their tobacco leaves out of the boundary of the Delhi State. After a certain amount of haggling a sum of Rs. 300.00 was agreed upon and after that had been paid by the villagers who went to bring them from somewhere, they were allowed to leave. A sum- mary of misconduct was served on the petitioners (copy Annexure "A") in February, 1961 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, An enquiry was conducted by Shri S. P. Kriplani, Deputy Superintendent of Police, New Police Lines, who made a report that the Department had failed to prove its case against the constables. One of the reasons which prevailed with him was that the complainants had failed to identify them and their statements as regards the incident also were contradictory. However, Shri S. C. Tandon, Commandant, Delhi Armed Police, was not satisfied with the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and he was of the view that the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses were not of such a nature that the witnesses should have been disbelieved. He called upon the petitioners as also the 4th constable Bishamber Dayal to show cause why they should not be dismissed from service as the charge against them had been proved. After giving them 'an opportunity .to show cause he recorded a lengthy order on 7th July, 1961 (Copy Annexure "E") holding that the petitioners and Bishamber Dayal were guilty of the charge which had been preferred against them. He, therefore, directed their dismissal. Only three out of the four constables, Sher Singh, Bhag Singh and Suraj Bhan have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) The first point, which was raised by way of an additional ground by means of a petition dated 31st August, 1964 which was instituted before any return had been filed on behalf of the respondents, was that Shri S. C Tandon Commandant, Delhi Armed Police, had no power or authority to order the dismissal of the petitioners as he was not invested with the powers of the District Superintendent, of Police who alone could take disciplinary action against them as provided by section 7, read with section I, of the Police Act, 1861. This matter stands concluded by a Bench decision of this Court in Union of India v. Ram Kishan, (Regular Second Appeal No. 256-D of 1962 decided by Falshaw, C. J. and Mehar Singh J. on 4th March, 1964). In that case it was held I that Shri D. C. Sharma, who had ordered dismissal of a Head Constable, had not been appointed a District Superintendent of the general Police District of Delhi nor was there any general or special order whereunder he performed all or any of the duties of the District Superintendent of Police under the Police Act in the General Police District of Delhi. He was not, therefore, empowered to order the dismissal of the Head Constable. In the prevent case it has not been contended by Mr. Parkash Narain that Shri S. C. Tandon was ever appointed a District Superintendent of Police of the General Police District of Delhi or that there I was any special or general order under which he could perform all or I any of the duties of the District Superintendent of Police under the I Police Act. The matter, therefore, is fully covered by this decision which is binding on me. Mr. Parkash Narain has, however, sought to assail its correctness by referring to certain provisions of the Police Act lwhich, according to him, were not considered by the Bench. It is not possible for me sitting singly to entertain any such argument.