JAGDISH NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed a Sub-Inspector of Police on 16.2.1964, after he had passed through the Police Training college, Moradabad, in the year 1966 he was posted as Sub Inspector of Police at the Police Station Jahanabad in the District of Fatehpur. In August,1966, the petitioner went to the house of one Chedue, who was wanted in some offence. Chedue was not present at his house. The petitioner enquired the where-abouts of Chedue from his wife, Amina Bibi. On her refusal to divilge the whereabouts of her husband, she is alleged to have been given cane beating by the petitioner. Amina Bibi filed a complaint under Sec. 323, Indian Penal Code in the court of the A.D.M.(J), Fatehpur. The petitioner was found guilty and was fined Rs. 20.00 on 27.10.1966. He filed a revision which was finally dismissed by the second temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Fatehpur on 29.7.1968. Thereafter, his services were terminated by an order dated Jan. 21,1969, by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur. The petitioner preferred an appeal against that order to the Inspector General of Police, U.P. on 7.3.1969 followed by a supplementary appeal on 8.9.1969. The appeal was rejected on July 7,1970. Thereafter, he submitted a petition to the State Government on Sept. 4,1970. This petition has also been rejected by the State Government by an order dated Sept. 25,1971. The petitioner has now approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for writs of certiorari and mandamus.

(3.) The complaint of the petitioner is that his service were terminated by way of punishment because of the case against him under Sec. 323, Indian Penal Code and as the requirements of Art. 311(2) were not complied with the order terminating his service is void. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents by one Anwer Ahmad Jafri, who is a File clerk in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur. Mr. Jafri in Paragraphs Nos. 4, 17 and 19 of his affidavit has denied the allegation that the petitioner's service were terminated by way of punishment. Mr. Jafri has stated that the termination of the petitioner's service was not due to his conviction under Sec. 323, Indian Penal code. I am afraid it is not possible to accept these averments of Mr. Jafri.