MUKHTAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was originally recruited as a constable in the U. P. police force but was later on promoted to be a head-constable after having completed the necessary training. In February 1955 he was posted in Shahjahanpur and on the 17th of that month he received an order of suspension. The suspension order was communicated to him telcphonically by the Kotwal, Shahja-hanpur. On the 7th of April 1955 a charge sheet was served upon him. He submitted his reply to the charges on or about the 17th of April 1955. The petitioner was departmentally tried under Section 7 of the Indian Police Act. Sri R. D. Pandey, Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur., recorded findings-against the petitioner, the concluding portion of which runs as follows :-

(2.) The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice mentioned above on or about the 19th July 1955 and on 2nd of August 1955 he was dismissed by the Superintendent of Police. He filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police in November 1955. The D. I. G. rejected the appeal by his order dated 6th of March 1956, Thereafter the petitioner filed a petition before the Inspector General of Police who rejected the same on 29th of October 1956. The petitioner thereafter applied for certified copies of the various orders which he received on the 15th of February 1957. Thereafter the present petition was filed in this Court. The grounds taken in the petition are that the charges levelled against the petitioner amounted to the cognizable offence of lurking housetrespass by alight and the proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act were wholly without jurisdiction because no first information report was recorded against the petitioner and a case was not registered against him and that the petitioner had not a reasonable opportunity of showing cause because he was not allowed to lead evidence in defence. Mr. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, later on made an application tor adding some grounds which are to the effect that the provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules are applicable to his case and inasmuch as the same were not applied in his case there has been no proper enquiry and in any case the provisions of the Police Regulations are ultra vires inasmuch as it is open to a Superintendent of Police to discriminate between two members of the police force by applying in the case of one the provisions of the Police Regulations, which are more onerous than the provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter called the Rules), and by applying in the case of the other the provisions of the Rules which are more generous.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State which has been sworn by Sri Girraj Singh, Circle Inspector. It is in the counter-affidavit that on the night between 16th and 17th February, 1955, one Radhey Lal reported to Sri Aisar Hussain, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shahja-hanpur, at about 10 p.m. that the petitioner and two other head-constables Rajendra Behari and Basdco Singh had entered his house for immoral purposes while he was sleeping with his wife, and that the two head-constables had since run away while the petitioner was still lying on the cot in drunken state inside the house which he (Radhey Lal) had: bolted from outside. The Deputy Superintendent of Police sent Radhey Lal to C. L Girraj Singh the deponent of the counter-affidavit who went to the house of Radhey Lal and found the petitioner sleeping under the influence of liquor on the cot of Radhey Lal. The petitioner was examined by the medical officer in charge of Shahjahanpur hospital who reported that he was found under the influence of liquor. When this fact was brought to the notice of the Superintendent of Police he suspended the petitioner on 17-2-1955. The Superintendent of Police asked C. I. Girraj Singh to hold an enquiry and report which the latter did, "and on a perusal of the report the Superintendent of Police started Section 7, Police Act proceedings against the petitioner and framed charges against him which were delivered to him (the petitioner) on 7tn April 1955. The charge was read out and explained to the petitioner and thereafter the Superintendent of Police put certain questions. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge on 17th April 1955, The petitioner's allegation that the departmental trial against him was conducted by C. I. Girraj Singh has been controverted in the counter-affidavit and it is stated that C. I. Girraj Singh only conducted the preliminary enquiry but the departmental trial was conducted by the Superintendent of Police himself who recorded the statements of the prosecution and the defence witnesses. From the counter-affidavit it appears that the petitioner had full opportunity of cross-examining such witnesses as were examined by the prosecution. So far as the defence is concerned it is stated in the counter-affidavit that originally the petitioner had submitted a list of 17 witnesses out of whom he examined 10 witnesses and gave up the others. On 29-6-1955 the petitioner made the following oral statement before the Superintendent of Police.