SURENDRA KUMAR RAIZADA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who was a Sub-Inspector of Police, seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order dated the 5th December 1962 of the Inspector-General of Police dismissing him from service. That order was upheld in appeal by the Government and a writ of certiorari has also been sought for quashing the order in appeal.

(2.) WHEN the petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police at Bagicha Station House in Jashpur, Sub-Division of Raigarh district, certain complaints were received against the applicant which led to the holding of a preliminary enquiry against him by the Circle Inspector, Shri Awasthy. At the end of the preliminary enquiry the applicant was suspended, and then a departmental enquiry was held against him on the charges that during the verification of A.D. No. 46/60 of village Sutari, he extorted a sum of Rs.100 from one Durjan Gyar on the pretext that he was responsible for the death of his own child who had died in an accidental fire, and threatened to challan him and his wife if the money demanded was not paid to him (the petitioner); and that similarly during the investigation of another A.D. No. 3/61 of village Bend relating to the death of Ahibaran Nagesia's child, who had also died in an accidental fire, he extorted a sum of Rs. 50 from Nagesia threatening him that in the event of non-payment the body of the child would be sent for post-mortem examination to ascertain whether the child's death was in suspicious circumstances. The departmental enquiry was first conducted by Shri K.K. Puri, the Sub-Divisional Officer. WHEN Shri Puri was transferred, the enquiry was entrusted to Shri Batria. At the conclusion of the enquiry, Shri Batria found both the charges amply proved against the applicant and made a report accordingly. Thereafter a notice to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner gave his reply which did not satisfy the Inspector-General of Police, who then made the impugned order.

(3.) AS regards the supply of copies of the statements given by the witnesses at the preliminary enquiry, they were given to the applicant only at the last moment when the witnesses were about to be examined at the departmental enquiry. This virtually prevented the petitioner from making any use of the copies for cross-examining the witnesses. It was unreasonable for the Enquiry Officer to think that the applicant could go through the copy then and there and think of the questions that he should put to the witness concerned in cross-examination. Again, the supply of a copy of the previous statement of a witness as and when he was examined proceeded on the erroneous assumption that it is only the previous statement of a witness that can be of any use for cross-examining him and that the previous statements of the other material witnesses are of no assistance. It is trite to say that cross-examination of a witness is done with the aid of all the material that is to be found in documents and previous statements of the principal witnesses and not only with reference to the witness's previous statements. In our opinion, the supply of the copies of complaints and of the previous statements at the last moment and belatedly totally deprived the applicant of an opportunity of effective cross-examination of the witnesses who gave evidence against him.