ROSHANLAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal preferred by a police constable challeng ing the order of his dismissal involves the interpretation of some of the provi sions of the Police Regulations, which are frequently employed for the purpose of holding enquiries against constables and awarding punishment to them.

(2.) THE material facts of the case are that the appellant was a constable in the U. P. Police Force and posted at police station Shikarpur in the district of Bulandshahr in April, 1959. He along with some other constables was charged under Section 7 of the Police Act for arresting Budhan Nai on 10-4-1959 caus ing fracture on his legs and concealing the cause thereof by making a false re port in the general diary. The appel lant's case was that the charge-sheet against him was baseless but the Super intendent of Police, Bulandshahr, by his order dated 29-6-1959 dismissed him on account of those charges. The order was upheld by the Deputy Inspec tor General of Police, Meerut Range, who dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on 12-1-1960. The Inspector General of Police rejected the plaintiff's revision against the said order on 14-11-1960. According to the allegations in the plaint the proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act initiated against the plaintiff were wrong and illegal and all subsequent proceedings and enquiries and also the orders passed were ultra vires, without jurisdiction and void ab initio. After serving a notice under Sec tion 80, Civil P. C. the plaintiff institut ed a suit on February 3/6, 1961, for a declaration that the aforesaid order dated 19-6-1959 passed by the Superintendent of Police dismissing the plaintiff from service was illegal and without jurisdic tion and that the plaintiff was entitled to reinstatement with effect from the date of dismissal and also to full pay and allowances as if he was never dis missed and continued to be in service.

(3.) THE trial court found that the enquiry was conducted properly by Sri Harish Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had been duly authorised by the D. I. G., Meerut Range. It was also found that the proceedings conduct ed by him were proper, that full oppor tunity was afforded to the plaintiff and he was in no way prejudiced by any act or omission of the inquiring officer. How ever, though the learned Munsif found that the enquiry conducted against the plaintiff was fair and proper, he came to the conclusion, purporting to follow the decision of this Court in 1956 All LJ 447 = (AIR 1956 All 578) that the pro visions of paragraph 490 of the U. P. Police Regulations were mandatory and hence the enquiry should have been con ducted by the Superintendent of Police himself and not by Sri Harish Kumar. For this reason, the learned Munsif held that the enquiry against the plaintiff was void and, therefore, he decreed the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff.