MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE petitioner was posted as a head constable at police outpost, George Town, police Station colonelganj, Allahabad, in August, 1952. On 15-9-1952, one Sukru made a report against the petitioner that he used to extort money from persons who grazed their cattle on road patris, and the City Deputy Superintendent of Police noted down the numbers of four one rupee currency notes produced by Sukru and handed them back to him. The City Deputy Superintendent of police was subsequently informed that the money had been taken by the petitioner from Sukru, and on receiving this information, he along with the Circle Inspector proceeded to the outpost and recovered the currency notes from the pocket of the uniform shirt of the petitioner. The petitioner was then suspended under the orders of the Senior Superintendent of Police, and proceedings were started against him. The enquiry into the matter was made by Shri Mahendra singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, before whom witnesses were produced and who recorded their statements in the presence of the petitioner, and the petitioner was allowed to cross-examine them. The petitioner was further afforded opportunity to offer any, explanation or defence for his conduct. The above facts have been taken from the counter-affidavit filed in the case and in the rejoinder affidavit it has been vaguely stated that the contents of para. 3 were not admitted in the form in which they were mentioned.

(3.) ON 3-1-1953, the Deputy Superintendent of Police submitted his report with a recommendation that the petitioner be dismissed from service. On receipt of the report, the senior Superintendent of Police issued a notice to the petitioner on 8-1-1953, enclosing a copy of the findings of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the police force. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 16-1-1953. The Senior Superintendent of police by his order dated 3-2-1953 imposed the punishment of reduction of the petitioner to the post of a constable for a period of three years. The petitioner went up in appeal against this order, and the Deputy Inspector General of Police was of the opinion that the charge against the petitioner had been proved, but the punishment awarded by the Superintendent was inadequate. He consequently issued another notice to the petitioner to show cause why the punishment, awarded to him by the Senior Superintendent of police be not enhanced and why he be not dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 2-7-1953. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, then called the petitioner for any oral explanation that he might like to give and for hearing the petitioner in his defence. The petitioner appeared before him on 13-7-1953 and is said to have stated that- he had nothing to add to the written statement already submitted by him. The Deputy inspector General of police then passed an order on the same day (13th of July) dismissing the petitioner from service. An appeal against that order was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police on 9-1-1954.