STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BHIMRAO VITHAL JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench as it was stated by the Assistant Government Pleader before the learned single Judge that the question as to who is the head of the Police Department is a matter of general importance and an authoritative pronouncement of the High Court is necessary for the guidance of the Government. On that statement being made the appeal itself has been referred to a Division Bench.

(2.) The facts leading to this litigation are very few and are not in dispute. The respondent, original plaintiff, was a police constable attached to the Juna Rajawada Police Station at Kolhapur. While he was returning after seeing a cinema show in the night of August 15, 1959, he was accosted by the Officers and men of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. As he was smelling of alcohol he was produced before the Civil Surgeon and his blood was obtained for examination. The clinical examination showed that though the pupils were dilated and he was smelling of alcohol, he was able to control himself, and was not under the influence of alcohol. The chemical analysis of the blood showed that the concentration of alcohol in his blood was 0. 49 per cent W/v. As the Officer-in-Charge of the investigation felt that this was below the percentage of 0.5 which required to raise a presumption for having drunk prohibited liquor so as to constitute an offence under S. 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, he made a report to the judicial Magistrate claiming "C" summary. That was granted.

(3.) However, the Superintendent of Police district Kolhapur, felt that a departmental enquiry was necessary for the alleged misconduct of the constable in consuming alcohol. He was of the view that the misconduct if proved, was of a nature where the constable was no fit to be retained in the Police force. He, therefore directed that a departmental enquiry be held. Accordingly a departmental enquiry was held which resulted in the dismissal of the constable. He, thereafter, served an appropriate notice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and filed the present suit.