DHARMENDRA KUMAR DIKSHIT Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari or any direction be issued to the opposite parties quashing the order of the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur, dated 20-12-1952 by which he dismissed the applicant from service.

(2.) The facts alleged in the affidavit filed along with the petition are that on 19-8-1952, the applicant, who was holding the substantive post of a head constable, was officiating as a Sub-Inspector of Police and was posted at police station ' Cantonment ' as incharge of Rail Bazar Chauki in the City of Kanpur. The allegation was that on the night between. 23rd and 24th August, 1952, the applicant along with two constables entered the house of one Nadir Hussain in mohalla Mirpur and threatened to lock him up and other inmates of the house under the Gambling Act in order to extort money from them and thereafter the applicant and the constables received money from them. On these allegations, the applicant was suspended and reverted to the substantive rank of head constable on 26-8-1952. Thereafter proceedings under Section 7, Police Act were started against him and were conducted by Shri S. K. Saxena, officiating Deputy Superintendent of Police. Sri Saxena gave his findings on 26-11-1952 and recommended that the applicant be removed from the police force. The findings were submitted to the Superintendent of Police; Kanpur for necessary orders. Sri Mardan Singh, who was at that time officiating Superintendent of Police, Kanpur City, issued a letter under his signature to the applicant and the applicant was asked to give his explanation to the findings arrived at by Sri Saxena. The applicant submitted his explanation to the officiating Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police, by his order dated 20-12-1952, uphold the findings arrived at by Sri Saxena 'and the applicant was dismissed from service. An appeal was filed by the applicant to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern, Range, Kanpur who, by his order dated 12-5-1053, rejected the appeal. The applicant then filed a second appeal before the Inspector General of Police who, by his order dated 18-3-1954, upheld the decision of the subordinate authorities. The applicant then made a representation to the State Government but he was directed to make his representation through proper channel and the representation was then withheld. Thereafter the present petition was filed. (3) A counter-affidavit has been filed on be half of the opposite parties in which it is stated that on the morning of 24-8-1952 the matter was reported to the Station Officer Cantonment, Sri Gajendra Singh. On 26-8-1952, Sri Gajendra Singh informed through phone to the Superintendent of Police, City. Same day the Superintendent of Police suspended the applicant and reverted him to the substantive rank of head constable. Thereafter the Superintendent of Police ordered an inquiry into the matter by the Circle Inspector. The Circle inspector submitted his report on 6-9-1952 and on the strength of that report, proceedings under Section 7, Police Act were started against the applicant. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sri Saxena, who held the inquiry against the Applicant eventually submitted his findings to the Superintendent of Police on 26-11-1952 with the recommendation that the applicant should be removed from service. The recommendation was accepted by the Superintendent of Police by his order dated 20-121952 and he dismissed the applicant from ser vice. An affidavit was further filed by the petitioner on 24-8-1955 in which he deposed that the applicant came to know that Sri Saxena, Deputy Superintendent of Police, was not authorised by the higher authorities, that is the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Kanpur under para 479 (f) of the Police Regu lations to conduct the inquiry under Section 7, Police Act.

(3.) Three points have been raised by the applicant in the present petition. Firstly, it is contended that under Section 35, Police Act, a charge under Section 7, Police Act can only be gone into and decided by an officer who has got magisterial powers. In view of the Pull Bench decision of this Courf in -- 'Mahendra Singh v. State of U. P.', AIR- 1956 All 96 (A), this point has not been pressed by the applicant. It has now been held by the Full Bench that for departmental inquiries under Section 7, Police Act it is not necessary that an officer conducting an inquiry should have magisterial powers as Section 35 does not apply to such inquiry.