RAMANARAYAN DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Ramnarayan Das who was a probationary sub-inspector of police against the following order passed by Sri R. C. Dash, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Southern Range, on 11 December 1954 discharging him from service for unsatisfactory work and conduct. Range Order No. 371/sr. dated 11 December 1954 Probationary Sub-Inspector Ramnarayan Das of Cuttack district is discharged from service for unsatisfactory work and conduct with effect from the date the order is served on him. (Sd.) R. C. Dash, Deputy Inspector-General, Southern Range, Orissa, Cuttack

(2.) THE petitioner was a probationary sub-inspector of police in the Orissa Police Force and on 28 July 1954 he was served with a notice calling upon him to show cause why he may not be discharged from service for gross neglect of duty and unsatisfactory work. Ten specific instances of neglect of duty were mentioned in the charge and two instances of misconduct including acceptance of illegal gratification from some persons were also specified. The petitioner showed cause before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police on 15 August 1954. So far as the charges relating to neglect of duty was concerned, he alleged that these had already been examined and some action taken against him by the Superintendent of Police and that further action in respect of those specific instances of neglect of duty would amount to double punishment. As regards the charge relating to misconduct he denied the allegations saying that the charge was based on the uncorroborated testimony of a village tout and a daffadar and that he should be given an opportunity of cross-examining them before this charge could be said to have been established. On receipt of his representation the Deputy Inspector-General of Police passed the following order: I have carefully gone through the representation of the probationary sub-inspector. His argument that he has already been punished by the Superintendent of Police for specific instances of bad work does not help him very much since all these instances during the period of probation have to be taken together in considering his merits for confirmation or otherwise. The sub-inspector has already had long enough of chance to work under different Superintendents of Police though in one district, but he has not been able to procure a good chit from anyone. He has also been adversely reported against after the representation dealt with herein was submitted. It is therefore no good retaining him further in service. He be discharged from the date on which this order is served on him. (Sd.) R. C. Dash, Deputy Inspector-General of Police Southern Range, Orissa, Cuttack. ' In the actual order of discharge, dated 11 December 1954, as already pointed out, it was clearly stated that the discharge was based on "unsatisfactory work and conduct. "

(3.) FROM the foregoing facts it is clear that no regular enquiry was held into the two specific instances of misconduct alleged against the petitioner in the original charge, one dealing with acceptance of illegal gratification and another with his presence at a math on 20 March 1953. He had denied these allegations and requested the Deputy Inspector-General of Police to give him an opportunity to cross-examine the two witnesses on whose statements they were based. No such opportunity was given. It does not appear that a regular enquiry was held under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. It is also admitted that no formal notice as required under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution was served on him, after coming to a rending about the truth or otherwise of the charges, calling upon him to show cause why he may not be discharged from service.