RAMNETRA Vs. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to call up and quash by certiorari-

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are these. At the material time, the petitioner was employed as a Head Constable attached to the Police Station House at Amarwara, on 25th December 1962, Abdul Mobin, Circle Inspector, received from one Maganlal a complaint against the petitioner. The Circle Inspector held a preliminary enquiry and submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police who, on 24th January 1963, directed that a departmental enquiry be held against the petitioner on the following charges:

(3.) THE first of these grounds is that the enquiry was, in part, held by Circle inspector Mishra to whom the power to hold the enquiry had not been delegated. In regard to this, all that could be brought to our notice was that, on 2 May 1963, the Deputy Superintendent recorded, while proceeding on leave, that, in accordance with the directions of the Superintendent of Police, he handed over the "d. E. File" to C. I. R. N. Mishra. No. written order of the Superintendent of Police was produced before us. It is unlikely that he had given only a verbal order. In any event, his affidavit to the effect that he had given such an order is not before us. In this situation, we find it difficult to accept that the Superintendent of Police had entrusted the holding of the enquiry to C. I. Mishra. As pointed out by the supreme Court in Mohammad Ghouse v. State of Andhra, 1957 SCR 414 : ( (S)AIR 1957 SC 246), it is the appropriate authority under Article 311 of the constitution which proposes to take action against a civil servant and it is for that authority to pass the ultimate order in the matter. It is open to it to depute a responsible and competent official to enquire and report: Pradyat Kumar Bose v. The Hon' ble the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, (1955 2 SCR 1331 : ( (S)AIR 1956 SC 285 ). In our opinion, a departmental enquiry cannot be taken up by any one to whom it has not been duly entrusted. We were referred to our observations in Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1964 MP LJ 493 : (AIR 1964 madh Pra 318) and it was contended that this was, at the most, an irregularity. We consider it sufficient to say that those observations, which relate to an unauthorised sub-delegation, are not strictly in point. Here there is no case of subdelegation and C. I. Mishra dealt with the enquiry, as shown without any authority.