STATE OF U P Vs. MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from an order of this Court dated the 2nd April 1957. The respondent was a Sub-Inspector of Police, and in September, 1951 he was charged under Section 7 of the Police Act with being remiss in and unfit for the discharge of his duty in that he had committed thirteen specific acts of misconduct which were therein set out. Aft the ensuing departmental enquiry the Superintendent of Police who conducted it held that four of these charges had been satisfactorily proved and that a fifth had been partially proven. The finding of the Superintendent of Police in respect of the first four of these five charges was confirmed by the Deputy Inspector , General of Police, 'S' Range, who by an order dated the 17th July, 1952, dismissed the respondent from service. From this order the respondent appealed to the Inspector General of Police but that appeal was dismissed on the 24th June, 1953. The respondent then applied unsuccessfully to the State Government for the revision of the order of dismissal, his application being rejected on the 22nd November, 1954. This Court by the order which is the subject of the present application was of opinion that there was no evidence produced at the enquiry which could establish the charges which had been held to have been proved, and although as it pointed out it dons not ordinarily interfere with a matter of discipline in the police force, it directed the issue of a writ quashing the order of the Inspector General of Police dated the 24th June, 1953.

(2.) It is now urged on behalf of the applicants that the proceedings at the departmental enquiry were purely of a departmental nature and that the Tribunal was entitled to base its conclusions on such material as it thought fit, including in particular hearsay evidence and documentary evidence the authenticity of which has not been established. In support of his submission the learned Standing Counsel invited our attention to Local Government Board v. Arlidge 1915 AC 120 Ex parte Frv, 1954-2 All ER 118 and Jagannath Prasad v. State of U. P.. AIR 1954 All 629. We however think it unnecessary in this case to consider these authorities for it has to be borne that the dismissal of the respondent was ordered by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and that that order was confirmed by the Inspector General of Police, in exercise of the powers vested in them by Section 7 of the Police Act. Now, that section so far as is material reads thus:

(3.) These rules in our opinion make it sufficiently clear that hearsay evidence is inadmissible and that documents which it is proposed to make exhibits (unless they are certified copies of public records, or are of a formal nature or are admitted) must be proved. This Court in the impugned order was of the opinion that the finding that the respondent had committed the acts which the Tribunal held to be established was founded on inadmissible evidence, and that accordingly the finding could not be sustained.