SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MIRZAPUR Vs. RAM MURAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Mehrotra dated 29-1-1957.

(2.) The respondent, Sri Ram Murat Singh, was a head constable in the U. P. Police Force. In December, 1954, he and another head constable were charged under Section 7 of the Police Act with remissness and dishonesty in the discharge of their duties. A departmental trial was held which was conducted by Sri B. N. Singh, a Deputy Superintendent of Police. This officer found the charge to be established and was of opinion that both the persons charged should be dismissed from the Force, and an order to this effect was subse-quently made by the Superintendent of Police on 9th May, 1950. Against this order the respondent appealed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Banaras, but his appeal was dismissed on 22-11-1955 and an application in revision to thei Inspector General of Police was rejected on 24-6-1955. Thereafter the respondent filed a petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in which he challenged the validity of the order dismissing him from service on a number of grounds. The learned Judge held that Sri B. N. Singh had, under the Police Regulations no jurisdiction to conduct the Departmental trial, and on this ground he quashed the order dismissing the respondent from service and thf; subsequent orders on appeal and revision made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Inspector General of Police. These officers now appeal.

(3.) The grounds of appeal are numerous but in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Parshotarn Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 33 and the State of U. P. v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 the learned Standing Counsel has made only one submission in this Court. It ts that as the respondent did not raise the question of the authority of Sri B. N. Singh to conduct the enquiry before the Superintendent of Police or before the Deputy Inspector General of Police on appeal or before the Inspector General of Police in revision, it was not open to him to raise that question for the first time in a petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.