STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GANPAT DHONDIBA SAWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first contention which has been made before us on behalf of the plaintiff, is as follows :-The State Government was not entitled to direct and/or hold the fresh departmental enquiry held by Sri Caldeira, because the scheme of the rules framed under the relevant provisions of law negatived the right in the Government to hold further enquiries after a defaulting Government servant was exonerated from the charges levelled against him in prior duly held departmental enquiry. The contention was that under S. 4 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, the State Government in its powers of superintendence was not entitled to direct a fresh enquiry as is contended for by the written statement. The contention was developed by arguing that there was no affirmative provision for revising in fresh enquiries findings made in prior enquiries that the defaulting Government servants were not guilty of charges levelled against them. The further argument was that powers of superintendence, if any, must be exercised by observing principles of fair play. The order of fresh enquiry on the basis of the same facts and evidence was in breach of principles of fair play. In ordering the fresh enquiry in this case, the Government had acted arbitrarily and in violation of the principles of fair play and/or natural justice. The powers of superintendence did not entitle the Government to act arbitrarily in the above manner. In this connexion, the alternative argument was that the provisions in S. 4 of the Act were not intended to deal with and apply to the provisions, in altogether another chapter, i. e. , Chap. III, relating to regulation, control and discipline of the police force. Section 4 appears in Chap. II which deals with matters specified in that chapter and relates to superintendence, control and organization of the police force. The contention was that in connexion with matters dealt with under Chap. III of the Act, the provisions in S. 4 relating to powers of superintendence in the State Government were never intended to be applicable.

(2.) THE substance of the reply of the State Government was that in all the relevant rules as well as the above Act which was admittedly applicable to the parties, there was no specific bar or even implied bar preventing the State Government from ordering a fresh departmental enquiry in connexion with charges in respect whereof a prior departmental enquiry might have been held. In fact, under the provisions in S. 4 and Sub-section (1) of S. 25 of the above Act, express power was reserved so as to enable the Government to order departmental enquiries in connexion with misconduct of defaulting police officers to decide whether penalties of various kinds should be imposed against such police officers. The power of the Government envisaged in the above sections was not controlled by any rules or otherwise. There were no rules which could be relied upon on behalf of the plaintiff to show that a fresh departmental enquiry cannot be ordered against police officers who may have been in prior enquiry exonerated of the charges levelled against them.

(3.) NOW, in connexion with these contentions, it is first necessary to refer to the relevant provisions in the Act and also the rules which were admittedly applicable to the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff belongs to the subordinate ranks as defined in Sub-section (16) of S. 2 of the Act. Chapter II of the Act relates to superintendence, control and organization of the police force. Section 4 in that chapter provides that :