SOM NATH Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9-11-1978 passed by the learned Ilnd Additional District Judge, Ratlam in Civil First Appeal No. 30-A of 1978 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 3-8-1978 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class- II, Alot, in Civil Suit No. 69-A of 1975.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are as follows:- The appellant was recruited as a Constable in the Madhya Pradesh Police Service on 1-1-1969. He was promoted as a Head Constable with effect from 1-8-1970 and was made permanent by order dated 10-8-1978. When the appellant was posted as a Head Constable at Police Station Alot, a departmental enquiry was instituted against him. The Superintendent of Police, Ratlam, held that the charges levelled against the appellant were proved and he passed a penalty of stopping the grade increment of the appellant for one year. Thereafter, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ujjain, sue motu sought to revise the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ratlam and after issuing notice to show cause to the appellant why he should not be removed from service and after hearing the appellant, the Deputy Inspector General of Police Ujjain parsed an order on 23-1-1974 removing the appellant from service. The appellant, after serving a notice to the State Government under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed the present suit for declaration that the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ujjain removing the appellant from service was invalid and that he continued to be in the service of the Government and for other consequential reliefs. The appellant challenged the order on the ground that the DIG. Ujjain had no jurisdiction to revise the order, as no appeal was maintainable against the order of the Superintendent of Police and, therefore, the order passed by the DIG is null and void. The appellant also contended that proper opportunity to defend himself was not given in the departmental enquiry and, therefore, the enquiry was invalid. The Trial Court held that the DIG had no power to revise the order passed by the Superintendent of Police and, therefore, decreed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal by the State Government the decree of the Trial Court has been set aside and the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed. The plaintiff has assailed the decree of the Court below in this appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff was appointed by the Inspector General of Police and, therefore, he could not be removed from service by the DIG. Ujjain and, therefore, the order of his removal was invalid. He further contended that the DIG, had no power to revise the order passed by the Superintendent of Police because the order was not appealable. He placed reliance upon Sec. 270 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations. The learned Counsel for the appellant also contended that during the departmental enquiry, the headquarter of the appellant was fixed at Ratlam and the enquiry was conducted at Alot and the appellant was not paid his T.A. and D.A. and, therefore, he was not given proper opportunity to defend himself and the enquiry was invalid on that ground. It was further contended that on the facts alleged against the appellant, the departmental enquiry could not be held and, therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. Lastly, it was contended that the order of removal from Service should have been passed as a last resort and, therefore, it was invalid.