MOHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN Vs. ONKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application on behalf of Mohammad Sharif Khan under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging his dismissal. The petitioner was originally appointed as a constable on 12th December 1938 and later on he was confirmed as an Armed Police Constable. After about three years he was promoted to the rank of a Naik in the Special Armed Constabulary at Allahabad. In 1947 he was transferred to Bahraich and then he was deputed at Sitapur as an Instructor, He came back to Bahraich from there as a Head Constable Armed Constabulary and at the time the incident occurred, he was posted at Unnao. His immediate officer was Sri Kamta Singh a Sub-Inspector of Armed Police and it was said that rice worth Rs. 15/- was supplied by the petitioner to the aforesaid Kamta Singh and since the petitioner wanted the sum of Rs. 15/- back, he got annoyed with him. A complaint was lodged by the petitioner against the said Sri Kamta Singh to the higher authorities.

(2.) The Janam Asthimi and Milad Sharif were to be performed in the Police Lines and the petitioner was incharge of the Milad Sharif arrangements. The petitioner gave an application to Sri Kamta Singh for making arrangement for the realization of the subscription but he is said to have thrown away that application. The petitioner thereafter approached the Reserve Inspector and he complained that Sri Kamta Eingh had thrown away his application. Thereupon Sri Kamta Singh was called by the Reserve Inspector and was asked to explain. Sri Kamta Singh said that he had not thrown the application but since the petitioner had made allegations of communal bias against him he did not want to do anything. The petitioner is alleged to have been asked to withdraw the words spoken by him against Sri Kamta Singh and it is alleged in the petition that he withdrew the same. Sri Kamta Singh reported the matter to Sri G.K. Mathur, Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thereafter an enquiry was held and Sri G.K. Mathur Deputy Superintendent of Police reported that he be demoted to the post of a constable. Thereafter the order of demotion was passed against which he appealed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police who issued notice to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service and after giving an opportunity he was dismissed and the appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner went to the Inspector General of Police who maintained the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police.

(3.) The petitioner has come to this Court and has urged three grounds on which he says the order is bad in law. The first ground was that no preliminary proper enquiry was made as contemplated by Rule 490 of the Police Regulations. In the supplementary affidavit which has been filed it is only alleged that the petitioner did not attend any preliminary enquiry after the incident and before the framing of the charge-sheet dated 5th March 1954. There is no allegation in the whole of the affidavit that no preliminary proper enquiry was held. In the preliminary enquiry it is not necessary at all that the petitioner should have been called. It is only after a preliminary enquiry is made, notice to the petitioner will be given to show cause and to explain his conduct. The preliminary enquiry contemplated in the Police Regulations is for the satisfaction of the officer and no right accrues to the petitioner to ask for the preliminary enquiry and if there is no right in the petitioner to ask for the preliminary enquiry, he cannot come to this court to complain that no preliminary enquiry was held. It is only, when the right of a petitioner is infringed that he has a right to come to this court.