PRAFULLA KUMAR MAZUMDAR Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the farts are shortly as follows :

(2.) The petitioner appellant entered the Police service in 1940. Since 1952, he has been stationed in the district of Hooghly. On or about 30th November, 1956 a charge-sheet was served upon the appellant, a copy of which is Annexure "B" to the petition. The charges were somewhat serious and involved moral turpitude. The respondent No. S, namely, the Inspector, District Enforcement Branch (1), was entrusted with the conduct of the enquiry. The Enquiring Officer held an enquiry which was conducted in the presence of the appellant, and on the 8th July, 1957 submitted his report, finding him guilty but recommending a lenient punishment. The Additional Superintendent of Police issued the usual show-cause notice asking the appellant to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The appellant was asked whether he wanted a personal hearing. The appellant showed cause and asked for personal hearing and was duly heard. Thereafter an order of dismissal was made dismissing the appellant from service. Against this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the respondent No. 3, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hooghly, on or about the 20th August, 1957. Thereafter, the appellant by his letter dated the 19th September, 1957 prayed for a personal hearing. But this prayer was not granted, and on the 8th November, 1957, the appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hooghly. Thereafter, the appellant filed several memorial petitions which failed, and with which we are not concerned in this appeal. The only ground on which the Rule was issued is as to whether this rejection of prayer for a personal hearing in the appeal, was in accordance with law or not. So far as this point is concerned, the facts are not disputed. The appellant did ask for a personal hearing, but this prayer was refused. The question is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the Deputy Inspector General of Police was bound to give a personal hearing to the appellant. The matter has been placed before us from two points of view. Firstly, as a violation of the rules of natural justice, and secondly, as an infringement of the provisions of the Bengal Police Regulations. So far as rules of natural justice are concerned, this has been the subject-matter of various decisions of the Supreme Court and so far as the circumstances of this case are concerned, the position may be said to be covered by the law as enunciated in the Supreme Court decision in Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam. Sinha, J. (as he then was) stated as follows:

(3.) It is, therefore, necessary to look into the rules and regulations which are applicable in the present case, so far as the proceedings are concerned culminating in the dismissal, of the appellant. The rules which are applicable are the Police Regulations Bengal of 1943 as amended from time to time. These rules were made under Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935 read with the relevant provisions of the Police Act (V of 1861). The authority of these regulations are not challenged before us. The appellate authorities are enumerated in Regulation 882. It has not been disputed before us that the appeal lay to the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Regulation 883 lays down the procedure for filing an appeal and the time limit for doing so. It lays down as to what the application or petition of appeal should consist of and provides that such appeal should be preferred within 37 days of the date of receipt of the order by the appellant. The Regulation also provides that when the petition of appeal is transmitted, the service-book or roll and confidential report book should also be forwarded. Regulation 884 is in the following terms :