SURSARI PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff against the decision of the Additional District Judge, Sidhi, dismissing his suit for declaration and arrears of pay. The suit was originally brought against the State of Vindhya Pradesh but after there -organization of States, the State of Madhya Pradesh has been substituted as Defendant.

(2.) THE facts relevant for consideration at this stage are not in dispute. The Appellant held the post of head constable in the year 1953 in the Police Department of the State and was posted at the Hinoti Police Station. He was charged with remissness and unfitness in the discharge of his duty within the meaning of Section 7 of the Police Act on the allegation that on 7.11.1953 when one Ramrajsingh went to the Police Station to lodge a report with regard to a theft, the Appellant instead of registering the case directed him to return back and thus the crime was attempted to be hid -den. The charge -sheet, dated 10 -3 -1954, was supplied to the Appellant under the signatures of Lal Pratapsingh who was the Superintendent of Police, Sidhi, at that time. Under the orders of the Superintendent of Police, the departmental enquiry was held by the Circle Inspector who recommended the punishment of dismissal. The Superin -tendent of Police acting on this recommendation passed orders for the dismissal of the Appellant on 16 -6 -1954. The Appellant went up in appeal to the Inspector General of Police who maintained the finding but reduced the punishment from dismissal to reduction in rank and made the Appellant a constable for a period of three years. His order is Ex. P -4 on record A revision was then filed against the order of the Inspector General of Police but it did not meet with success (vide Ex. P -5). In the departmental enquiry, Lal Pratapsingh who was the dismissing authority himself figured as a witness against the Appellant to prove that Ramrajsingh did visit the Police Station on 7 -11 -1953 to make his report.

(3.) THE trial Court dismissed the Plaintiff's suit mainly on two grounds: