STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. NANASAHEB MAHANAJI DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises an interesting question in relation to departmental enquires.

(2.) The points that arise for determination have to be considered in this following background. The respondent plaintiff was working as a Police Head Constable attached to the Washi Police Station, District Osmanabad between the 9th June, 1965 to 13th June, 1966. Brothers Laxman and Pralhad, the sons of Dattatraya Bargaje had fallen out to such an extent, that Laxman gave an application against his brother to the police entreating them to take action under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application given by Laxman was made over to plaintiff for an enquiry. The enquiry was completed by the plaintiff in about November 1965 and the finding reached by him was that the dispute between the brothers was of a civil nature, for which reason Laxman had to resort to a Civil Court. Papers pertaining to the enquiry were made over to the custody of a writer constable. After the transfer of plaintiff, constable Dinkar Kulkarni, then at the Washi Police Station, was engaged in rearranging the papers. At that time he come across blank papers bearing the signature of witnesses connected with the application moved by Laxman. These papers were made over by constable Kulkarani to the P.S.I., who in turn reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police when that office carried out an inspection of the Police Station concerned. The S.P. directed the C.P.I. to conduct a preliminary enquiry and submit a report. The C.P.I. recorded statements of Laxman and other witnesses. He found a prima facie case that plaintiff had not recorded the statement of any witness and that the signatures on the blank papers had been obtained at his instance by Laxman, and, that a prima facie case having been established against the plaintiff, it was necessary to take further steps. The S.P. accepted the proposal and directed a departmental enquiry against the plaintiff, the task being assigned to the S.D.P.O., Lature. The Enquiry Officer framed charges against the plaintiff and made over copies of the statement recorded in the preliminary enquiry by the C.P.I. to the delinquent. Plaintiff denied the charges levelled against him. Witnesses who had been questioned by the C.P.I. were summoned before the S.D.P.O. The S.D.P.O. read out statements attributed to these witnesses. In the record prepared by the S.D.P.O., most of the witnesses denied that plaintiff had done anything that was wrong. In particular, it was Laxmans version that a police constable or Head Constable, whose name he did not know and who certainly was not the plaintiff had directed him to obtain signatures on blank papers of certain persons. This task was carried out by him and the signatures bearing, but otherwise blank papers were made over by him to the policeman who had given the direction to him. The S.D.P.O. held that none of the charges could be said to have been established against the plaintiff. However, he observed that the conduct of the plaintiff was quite suspicious and the plaintiff had behaved in a manner derogatory to his status. For this misconduct he proposed withholding of plaintiffs increment for a period of six months. A report to this effect was submitted by the S.D.P.O. to the S.P. The S.P. held that plaintiff was guilty of perverse conduct as charged, and, that he could not be exonerated. Plaintiff was given a Show Cause Notice as to why action should not be taken against him for having obtained signatures of persons without recording their statements etc. etc. plaintiff was quality and police force. Plaintiffs appeal/revision and representation to the competent authorities having proved of no avail, he filled a suit after having served the required notice under section 88 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) In the suit, plaintiff contended that the departmental enquiry held against him was in contravention of his statutory and constitutional rights. In particular, it was his case that the Enquiry Officer committed a serious error in utilising statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry, in the course of the departmental enquiry. The appellant State denied that there had been any infraction of the statutory or constitutional rights of the plaintiff. It was contended that the S.P. had acted upon admissible material. Whether that was sufficient to warrant the punishment of removal from service, was, a question outside the jurisdiction of Civil Court. The courts below were of the view that Para 448 of the Bombay Police Manual, 1959 which governed the matter prohibited the reception of statements recorded in the absence of the delinquent at the stage of the enquiry against him. At the preliminary enquiry the delinquent was not present and no material incriminating him had come before the S.D.P.O. in the course of the departmental enquiry. Therefore, the enquiry was vitiated and the removal pursuant thereto could not be sustained. In appeal, it is contended that the courts below were in error.