BANKHANDI LAL Vs. ASST SUPDT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against a judgment of Mr. Justice Oak dated the 26th November, 1957, by which he dismissed a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The appellant Bankhandi Lal was formerly employed as a police head constable in the district of Mathura. Certain allegations having been made against him he was charge-sheeted under section 7 of the Police Act. The enquiry into the charges framed was held by Mr, B. M. Mathur, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mathura. He recorded his findings against the appellant and forwarded the same to the Superintendent of Police, Mathura, Agreeing with the findings the latter served a notice on the appellant requiring him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the Police Force. The appellant submitted his explanation. The explanation was not found to be satisfactory and by his order dated the 10th October, 1954, the Superintendent of Police dismissed the appellant from service. He preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Western Range, and a revision to the Inspector-General of police but both were, rejected. He then filed the petition out of which this appeal has arisen and! contended in support of it that the order of his dismissal stood vitiated because the departmental trial which had resulted in it was not held in accordance with the prescribed rules. The main ground on which objection was taken to the trial was that Mr. B. M. Mathur, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Mathura, who had held the enquiry, had no jurisdiction to hold it because he did not possess the requisite qualifications prescribed by Clause (f) of para 479 of the Police Regulations. The petition of the appellant had been rejected by the learned Judge, who heard it, on the grounds (1) that it was not proper to interfere in a case of departmental action against a member of the Police Force, (2) that the main point relating to the jurisdiction of Mr. B. M. Mathur to hold the departmental enquiry on which the appellant had based his petition had not been raised by him before the departmental authorities and (3) that the petition had been filed with delay which had not been satisfactorily explained.

(3.) It has been urged on behalf of the appellant in appeal that in the circumstances of the case the rejection of the petition was not justified. Emphasis is laid on the fact that it was not disputed on behalf of the respondents, that Mr. Mathur was not possessed of the requisite qualifications to entitle him to hold the enquiry.