SHANTARAM D SALVI Vs. M M CHUDASAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for a writ in the nature of 'certiorari', or a writ of prohibition, or any other writ, direction or order under Art. 226 of the Constitution in a matter arising out of certain proceedings and inquiry held in respect of the petitioner's conduct under the City of Bombay Police Act (4 of 1902 ).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are these: The petitioner was appointed as a sub-inspector in the Bombay Police Force in August 1939. In 1948 he was promoted to the rank of Deputy Inspector. In June 1949 he was attached to the Byculla police Station as a Deputy Inspector when he was suspended from the Police Force. Between June 18 and 8-9-1949, he was called several times by Inspector Subhand of the Anti-Corruption Branch, and his statement was recorded. He was furnished with a charge sheet by the Superintendent,. "f" Division, based on statements recorded by Inspector Subhand, alleging that the petitioner by reason of the charges mentioned therein had acted in a manner prejudicial to or likely to throw discredit on the discipline or reputation of the Police Force, and as such was liable under Rules. 12 and 14 of Appendix "a" of Section 12 (a), City of Bombay Police Act. It is the petitioner's case that when he was called for recording his statement he was asked by the Superintendent whether he wished to call any of the witnesses whose statements were recorded in the course of the proceedings during the preliminary inquiry held by Inspector Subhand. By an order passed on 10-11-1949, the petitioner was dismissed from the Police Force. He thereupon gave notice under Section 80 of the Civil P. C. to file a suit challenging the validity of that order. That order was thereupon cancelled and a show-cause notice dated 21-11-1952, was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner then filed the present petition challenging the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 to do so on various grounds. In the petition the petitioner goes on to make a number of allegations about the improper and irregular manner of the proceedings in which statements were recorded by Inspector Subhand, and in which crass-examination of witnesses was conducted before Inspector Subhand. I do not want to express any opinion about the alleged irregularity or impropriety of the proceedings which took place before the charge sheet was handed over to the petitioner, because, in my opinion, it is abundantly clear that the entire proceedings were conducted by a person who was not the person duly authorised by law to conduct the same. It is the petitioner's case, and considerable stress was laid by Mr. Gamadia, learned counsel for the petitioner, on this aspect of the case, that under the provisions of Rule 3 (b) of Appendix "d" the proceedings and the preliminary inquiry against the petitioner from its commencement up to its conclusion, although required to be held by the Superintendent of the Division in which the alleged misconduct had taken place, or by some other superintendent of other Division, if the Commissioner of Police so directed, those proceedings and inquiry were in fact conducted, not by a superintendent of police, but by an officer of lower rank. To put it differently Mr. Gamadia's contention is that the proceedings not having been held by a superintendent of police were entirely vitiated, and I must on that ground hold that there were no proceedings at all.

(3.) RULE Ha) of Appendix "d", City of Bombay police Act is as follows : "1a) No police officer shall be departmentally punished otherwise than as provided in these rules. "