SUBBIAH CHOUDARY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an order of the Government compulsorily retiring the petitioner, who, at the relevant time, was an inspector of police.

(2.) THE delinquent officer was a circle inspector of police from 11 September 1953 to 16 December 1954 at Nuzvid. While there, there were some charges against him of having received illegal gratification in connexion with a case of arson against some individuals. It appears that a panchayat board office was set fire to on 15 December 1953. In connexion with this crime, twelve persons were taken into custody by the head constable of Tiruvur police station, three of them, viz. , (i) Ramisetti China Lakshmayya, (ii) Ramleetti Narasayya, and (iii) Katigala Galayya, were put under arrest and kept on remand. Four witnesses were examined by the concerned magistrate, under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter, the sub-inspector in charge of the station, who was examined as P. W. 7 in these proceedings, had taken over the investigation from the head constable and prepared a draft chargesheet, Ex. P. 35, on 1 January 1954. The accused on remand filed an application for releasing them on bail. The sub-inspector endorsed on the bail application that he was opposing bail, since the offence was punishable with transportation for life. But before these Remarks could be forwarded, the accused Officer came on the scene and induced the sub-inspector to strike off those remarks and to write a fresh endorsement that he was consenting to release three persons on ball. Later on, the case was reported as undetectable. But on perusal of the records, the Deputy Superintendent of Police directed 4be filing of chargesheet against the persons apprehended. As the case was not properly conducted, the accused were discharged by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate in P. R. C. No. 3 of 1954 on 30 November 1954.

(3.) IT was the case of the department that the delinquent officer having entered into an agreement with one Narasayya to get the persons accused of the crime "freed from trouble " in consideration of his being paid a sum of Rs. 150 by way of bribe, prevailed upon the sub-inspector by undue influence to withdraw his opposition to the bail application and to report the case as undetectable. It is alleged that the petitioner had actually received Rs. 150. On receipt of information, the Government had the matter investigated by the X Branch, O. I. D. On the report of the X Branch, which showed that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings.