KADAR Vs. DY SUPDIT OF POLICE KASARAGOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arguments of counsel appearing for the petitioner in this case had been very brief but most emphatic. He urges that the disciplinary proceedings and the enquiry held pursuant to the charges framed against the petitioner was vitiated in that, there was at least the possibility or the risk of a prejudiced mind entering a finding against the petitioner though the evidence may not support it. This argument was advanced on the basis of Ext. P2, a communication by the Inspector General of Police, the 3rd respondent to the writ application, addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Cannanore, in these terms:

(2.) By Ext. P7 order, the punishment has been imposed on the petitioner. He filed an appeal against the order Ext. P7 and the third respondent rejected that appeal by Ext. P9 order. These orders are challenged in this writ application. The ground is that it cannot be said that the conclusions reached against the petitioner have been reached without the person holding the enquiry being prejudiced by the direction contained in the communication Ext. P2, extracted above. Counsel submits that this direction was most likely taken as a command by a superior officer. My attention has been invited to a decision of the. Privy Council in B. Surinder Singh Kanda v. Government of the Federation of Malaya (1962 (2) WLR 1153) and the following passage quoted: