RAMCHANDRA GOPALRAO Vs. D I G POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the petitioner Ramchandra Gopalrao Munshi has moved this Court for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash an order dated 30th July, 1954, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. , Madhya Bharat, dismissing him from service.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police in the then Ratlam State by the Ruler of that State by Dar-bar Order No. 9494 dated 31st December, 1945, and was in the service of that State on the date when the ratlam State merged in Madhya Bharat; that after the formation of Madhya Bharat and the merger therein of the Ratlam State, he was unpointed as a member of the madhya Bharat Police-Force, as by virtue of Ordinance No. 30 of 1948, issued by the Rajpramukh of Madhya Bharat, he was enlisted and enrolled as a Sub-Inspector and his name was included in the list of Sub-Inspectors prepared by the inspector General of Police of Madhya Bharat and published in the Madhya Bharat police Gazette dated 31st, August, 1950. The applicant further states that in April, 1953, he proceeded from village Ghatia to Sutarkhedi village for making arrangements to prevent an apprehended breach of peace between one Doulatsingh and some other persons over a piece of land; that while he was at Sutarkhedi, three bullocks belonging to the said Doulatsingh were stolen on the night of 20th April, 1953; that on 2nd May 1953 Doulatsingh made an application to the Deputy Inspector General of Police complaining that he, 1. e. , the petitioner, was not properly investigating into the theft, which he himself had instigated; that he made a similar application to the Superintendent of police and also to the Anti-Corruption Officer, Ujjain, to the effect that the petitioner was demanding a bribe; that on 1st August, 1953, Doulatsingh again complained to the Superindendent of Police, this time alleging that the petitioner had taken a bribe from him; that on these complaints an enquiry was ordered by the Superintendent of Police; that an enquiry was then held by the Deputy superintendent of Police, Ujjain, the charges being that the petitioner had-not carried on investigation according to law into the incident of theft which took place at the residence of Doulatsingh and that he had taken a bribe of Rs. 50 from doulatsingh; that on the conclusion of the enquiry, the Deputy Superintendent of police forwarded his report to the Superintendent of Police who without any further enquiry submitted his findings on the report of the Deputy Superintendent of police to the Deputy Inspector General of Police; that the Deputy Inspector general of Police forwarded a copy of the findings to the petitioner asking him to show cause why he should not be dismissed; and that the petitioner accordingly filed his reply before the Deputy Inspector General of Police who merely perused it and later on passed the impugned order of dismissal.

(3.) THE petitioner contends that the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police dismissing him from service is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the deputy Inspector General of Police was not competent to order his dismissal and that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to meet the charge as contemplated under Article 311 of the Constitution. The petitioner says that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges because:-