STATE Vs. GOPINATH SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal against a decision of Shiv Dayal, J. , arises out of a suit filed by the respondent, Goplnath Shukla, against the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Inspector-General of Police for a declaration that the order passed by the Inspector-General of Police on 25 January 1955 removing him from service was illegal, null and void, and for the consequential relief of reinstatement in service. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge, Class I, Jabalpur, and the appellants were directed to take back the plaintiff-respondent in service from the date of his removal therefrom. The judgment and decree of the trial Court were upheld by the Second Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in an appeal preferred by the State against the decision of the trial Court. The State then preferred a second appeal in this Court which was dismissed by Shiv Dayal, J.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the plaintiff's case was that he was a confirmed sub-inspector of police In the police force of the State; that when he was holding the post of station-house officer at Barhi in tahsil Murwara, district Jabalpur, a departmental enquiry was held against him on the charges of

(3.) THE defendants denied the plaintiff's allegation that the departmental enquiry was held in an irregular manner and caused him prejudice. They pleaded that the grant of permission to the plaintiff to engage a lawyer in the departmental enquiry was purely a discretionary matter resting with the enquiry officer and no prejudice had been caused by the refusal of the permission. The general allegation of the plaintiff that he was not given certified copies of the relevant documents was not denied. It was, however, averred that there was no provision for supplying certified copies of documents and the plaintiff was permitted to Inspect all the relevant documents and take copies and notes of the documents and that he did actually Inspect all the documents and took copies and notes of the same. The plaintiff's allegation that he was not allowed to examine certain witnesses and was also not allowed to cross-examine certain witnesses examined in the departmental enquiry were refuted, and it was added that as the plaintiff had not stated in the plaint the manner in which the provisions of the Constitution or of any rules and regulations had been contravened in the conduct of the departmental enquiry, no specific reply could be given to his general allegation that the departmental enquiry was not held in accordance with the procedure laid down in the police regulations, general book circulars and Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.