PROVINCE OF BOMBAY Vs. MADHUKAR GANPAT NERLEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals arising out of civil suit No. 1483 of 1945 of the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, One of them (No. 31 of 1948) is filed by the Province of Bombay and the other (NO. 62 of 1948) is filed by Madhukar Ganpat Nerlekar, a Sub-Inspector of Police, who was dismissed from Government service by the order of the Inspector-General of Police, Bombay, dated 12 11-1913, after departmental enquiry which was held by the District Superintendent of Police, Poona. The plaintiff has filed Suit No. 1483 of 1945 for recovering Rs. 48,475 by way of damages for wrongful dismissal from service, future interest at 6 per cent, on that amount and costs. In the alternative, ho has asked for a declaration that the order of his dismissal was void and inoperative in law and that he is entitled to be reinstated in service and receive the arrears of salary as if ho had not been dismissed from service.

(2.) THE plaintiff's contentions are that the enquiry which was conducted by the District Superintendent of Police, Poona, under orders of the Inspector-General of Police. Bombay, was illegal, unfair and unjust, that rules of natural justice were violated in the conduct of the enquiry, that express and mandatory requirements of the rules and orders made under the Bombay District Police Act, 1890 (NO. iv [4] of 1890), were dis-regarded, and that even the provisions of Section 240, Government of India Act, 1935, which were a pre-requisite for the passing of an order of dismissal against a servant of the Crown, were broken by the defendant. It is contended by him that under Section 240 Sub-section (3), Government of India Act, 1935 a punishment of dismissal could not be passed against him without giving him a notice to show cause why such punishment should not be inflicted on him, Admittedly no opportunity was given 60 him to show cause against his proposed dismissal before an order of dismissal was passed against him. It is contended for him that he was not allowed to have a copy of the "summary of evidence" forwarded by the District Superintendent of Police to the Inspector-General of Police with a recommendation that he should be dismissed from service. It is also submitted that the Inspector-General of Police had not informed the plaintiff that he had proposed to accept the recommendation of the District Superintendent of Police. It is contended that the order of dismissal passed in these circumstances is illegal.

(3.) THE contentions of the defendant (the Province of Bombay) are that the plaintiff was dismissed after proper departmental enquiry, that the rules and procedure for such enquiry were duly observed, that the plaintiff being an officer of subordinate rank in the Police Force, his case was governed by Section 243, and not Section 240, Government of India Act, 1935, that in accordance with Section 243, the conditions of service of the plaintiff were determined by the rules framed under the District Police Act, 1890, that there was no rule in the rules framed under Section 27, District Police Act, 1890, laying down that a notice to show cause against dismissal or reduction should be issued to a police officer of a subordinate rank before an order of dismissal or reduction is passed on him, and that, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled, as of right to a notice to show cause against dismissal before an order of dismissal was passed against him. It is accordingly submitted for the defendant that the suit of the plaintiff deserves to fail,