GAYA PRASAD MISRA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is Gaya Prasad Misra was a member of the Police Force in this State. He entered service sometime in 1935 as a Constable but was working as Station Officer Incharge Police Station Misrikh in 1952. While posted in Sitapur district where Misrikh is situate he appeared to have purchased a house for Rs. 8000/- in the name of his wife. Admittedly he did not inform the higher authorities, as was necessary under Rule 11 of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules, about the purchase of this house. He was accordingly asked by the Superintendent of Police on 18-12-1953 about this purchase and he was also suspended with effect from the same date. On 10-4-1953 he was served with a charge sheet also under Section 7 of the Police Act accusing him of several charges in which he was blamed of having accepted illegal gratification besides purchasing the above house. A case under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 was also registered against him an 30-5-1953, and the investigation was entrusted to a C. I. D. Inspector who got recorded the statement of certain witnesses also under Section 164 Cr. P. C. The report recorded under the above section is annexure 'C' to the main affidavit filed by the petitioner. A final report under Section 173 Cr. P. C. was also filed by the police in respect of the charge under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 26-10-1953. It was accepted by the District Magistrate on 18-11-1953.

(2.) On 6-12-1953 the petitioner was once again served with a charge sheet annexure 'B.' In this document the Superintendent of Police laid four distinct charges against the petitioner. The first charge related to the purchase of a house in the name of his wife for Rs, 8000/- and his not informing his higher authorities about it thus contravening Rule 11 of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules. The remaining three charges were that while posted at police station Misrik he extracted bribe in three cases; in one case a sum of Rs. 240/- from Jia Lal and Rupan chamars of village Phulpur, in another a sum of Rs. 200/- from Smt. Chutkanni and Lakuri of village Lohangpur, and in the third Rs. 250/- from Bihari Pasi in connection with a crime under Section 452/323 I. P. C. As usual the Superintendent of Police while serving the above charges on the petitioner further called upon him to file his defence on or before 14-12-53 and also to inform the Superintendent of Police whether he wanted to be heard in person or desired to cross examine any witness or produce any document, list whereof was given in the charge sheet. In response to the above the petitioner submitted his reply on the charges on 14-12-53. He also requested permission to be heard in person and to cross-examine the witnesses. 2a. It is not denied that the petitioner was heard in person and was also allowed the requisite opportunity to cross examine the witnesses whom he wanted to cross examine. His grievance, however, is two-fold; one is that the enquiry originally closed on 12-1-54 but afterwards on 22-1-54 the enquiry officer examined one more witness Ram Dayal to prove the report Ex. D-6 as it was then marked by one Lal Ji Govind Rao, Sub-Inspector, District Intelligence Staff, when Sri Lal Ji Govind Rao himself was neither produced nor tendered for cross-examination; the other is that without there being any charge against him of general dishonesty the enquiry officer entered into a discussion of that fact with the result that he was prejudiced in arriving at his conclusions on charge No. 4 which related to acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs. 250/- from Bihari Pasi. 2b. The other facts are that the enquiry officer on 24-1-54 held the first and fourth charge proved against the petitioner and he proposed the punishmet of dismissal while submitting his findings to the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Thereupon the Deputy Inspector General of Police served a copy of the findings by the enquiry officer on the petitioner and asked him to show cause against the proposed punishment. The petitioner then submitted his explanation on 16-2-54. Ultimately the Deputy Inspector General of Police after considering the explanation furnished by the petitioner dismissed him from service on 8-5-54. Against the said order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police the petitioner appealed to the Inspector General of Police, but the latter also dismissed it on 4-1-55. After the dismissal of his appeal he filed this petition impugning the order of dismissal.

(3.) Although numerous grounds were mentioned in the petition against the order sought to be impugned, those urged at the hearing were these: