LALTA PRASAD Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In March 1951 the petitioner was the station Officer, P. S. Neoria in the district of Pilibhit. On 1-6-1951, the dead body of a newly born child was found; the petitioner made an investigation, and on 9th June he instituted proceedings under Section 318, Penal Code against one Srimati Hulaso. On the 6th July he was transferred to police station Kotwali in the city of Pilibhit. On the 13th July he was placed under suspension, and proceedings were taken against him under Section 7, Police Act on the allegation that he had extorted money from Sri Pitam Lodh, the father-in-law of Srimati Hulaso, by wrongfully confining him and two other persons on the 2nd and 3rd June. The enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police of Pilibhit, the second respondent, who recommended the petitioner's dismissal from the police force. In September, 1951, the petitioner was called upon by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, northern Range, to show cause why be should not be dismissed and he was furnished with a copy of the findings of the Superintendent of Police. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the Deputy Inspector General but the latter, by an order dated 12-10-1951, dismissed him from service. An appeal by the petitioner to the Inspector General of Police was rejected on 4-6-1952. The petitioner now prays for the issue of a writ of 'certiorari' quashing the orders of the Deputy inspector General and of the Inspector General on the ground that the enquiry under Section 7, police Act was conducted in such a manner as to deprive him. of an adequate opportunity of defending himself.

(2.) THE case is one of some difficulty. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of either of the respondents and the facts set out in the petitioner's affidavit must accordingly be accepted as correct.

(3.) ACCORDING to that affidavit, the petitioner was informed at about 4 P. M. on the 13th July that he was urgently required by the second respondent. The petitioner went at once to the superintendent's bungalow which he reached between 4 and 5 P. M. , and on arrival he was served with the following order dated the preceding day, the 12th July :