STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. K H KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh against the judgment and decree of the First Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, in O. S. No. 30 of 1960 whereby he set aside the order of dissmissal of the plaintiff from service as head constable and granted him a decree for arrears of salary at Rs. 100 per month with effect from 11th August, 1956 till the date of his reinstatement declaring at the same time that he is entitled to be reinstated. The plaintiff was a head constable working in the Central Police Line at Amberpet. The allegations against him were that he had committed theft of bus warrant book from the office of the Inspector-General of Police, Hyderabad and was found trying to sell the same at Puthbowli to other persons. A Warrant Book No. 3 is said to have been recovered from his possession under panchanama and he was charge-sheeted for an offence under section 379, Indian Penal Code, before the Special Magistrate for Hyderabad State. His prosecution before the Special Magistrate in Case No. 4/18/55 resulted in his conviction and he (the plaintiff) was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine cf Rs. 100 on 21st December, 1955. He was already under suspension and consequent on fi1st convicticn he was dismissed from service with effect from 28th December, 1955 by the Commandent, Special Armed Reserve Police under whom he was serving. He. went in ppeal before the Sessions Judge, Serunderabad, his appeal being numbered., as Criminal Appeal No. 406/6/1955. The Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, found that the Special Magistrate had convicted him without complying with the mandatory provision of Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code,and on that grourd set aside the conviction. Consequent on this acquittal the plaintiff was reinstated on 11th March, 1956 with retrospective effect from 28th December, 1955 which was the date of his dismissal. The State went in appeal to the High Court against the order of acquittal. After the appeal was filed, the plaintiff was again kept under suspension in pursuance of the letter of the Inspector-General of Police with effect from 11th August, 1956. On 19th February, 1957 this Court confirmed the decision of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge. When all attempts to bring him to book tor a criminal offence thus failed the department decided tor purity of its administration to institute departmental enquiry against him. That was particularly because the acquittal was based purely on a technical ground and the act of the plaintiff fell within the definition of misconduct as well warranting departmental enquiry against him. This enquiry was, ordered by the Inspector-General of Police and the Commandant concerned, pursuant to this diitction, initiated the proceedings. A charge was framed by the District Superintendent of Police and was signed by the Commandant. It was given to the plaintiff on 31st January, 1958 under Exhibit B-9. It put him on notice that the charges against him pertained to thelt and misconduct in the discharge of his duties.

(2.) The charge memo, stated the facts constituting the charges, referred to the criminal proceeding launched, and the judgments ot the Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, the Sessions Court and the High Court in that behalf and informed him that the said facts constituted offence of theft for which he (the plaintiff) deserved to be dealt with on punishment roll. After referring to seven witnesses who were proposed to be called in the departmental inquiry and the documentary evidence to be let in, the charge memo, stated thus;

(3.) This charge memo, dated 31st January, 1958, signed by the Commandant was served on the plaintiff. The date ot service however is not clear from the record. The plaintiff did not submit his explanation till 14th February, 1958. On 14th February ,1958 he sent his representation marked Exhibit B-10, denying the allegations in the charge memo, and alleging that it was all a concoted story to implicate him falsely in criminal case. Alter referring to the judgments of the Special Magistrate, the Sessions Judge and the High Court he said that when he was once tried by a competei t Court of law for the alleged offence of theft, retrial on the same cause of action is against law any natural justice and that at any rate after acquittal from both higher Courts any departmental enquiry is invalid. In view of the same he requested that the contemplated departmental enquiry be withdrawn and the order of suspension be vacated. It appears during the intervening period on 6th February, 1958 the plaintiff was given true copies of the judgments of the Special Magistrate and the High Court which he (plaintiff) acknowledged under his signature on the proceeding sheet. On the same day on the very proceeding sheet the Circle Inspector, who is said to be the Officer appointed by the Commandant as the Enquiry Officer, made the following endorsement: "The delinquent is hereby directed to be present in the office of the adjudaut S.A.R. at 8 A.m. on 17th February, 1958." The plaintiff thereunder made the endorsement " noted " with his due signature and dated 6th February, 1958. This, it is said, is the notice of enquiry given to the plaintiff by the Enquiry Officer though it does not expressly state so and the plaint'ff states that no notice for enquiry was ever given to him. On 17th February, 1958 the enquiry was held and the enquiry officer recorded statements of three witnesses in the Crime Branch office at Lakkidikapul. The plaintiff went there at about 12 noon. By that time the enquiry officer had already recorded the statement. Thereafter on 25th February, 1958 another witness was examined in the absence of the plaint'ff and on the same day the report was sent to the Commandent. This report, which contains summary of the statements of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and also of the explanation of the plaintiff submitted under Exhibit B-10, refers to the fact that;