JOTI PARSHAD Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises out of a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India by Joti Parshad who was dismissed from the Police Force by an order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon, and the sole point which falls for decision is whether provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India were duly complied with in the matter of dismissal of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 2-10-1939 and was confirmed as such on 2-10-1942. He was then promoted as Head Constable in 1944 and later as an Assistant Sub-Inspector on 13-10-1949. He was sometime thereafter reverted back to the post of Head Constable and on 4-4-1951 he was again promoted as Assistant Sub-inspector. In January 1953 he was transferred to Karnal under the orders of the Deputy inspector General of Police, Ambala, and in the second week of March, 1953, he was transferred from Karnal to the Recruiting Training Centre in Jahan Khelan in hoshiarpur District. On 4-4-1953 he received summonses by a wireless message to appear as a witness in a departmental enquiry against one Pt. Ram Saran Das, head Clerk of the office of the Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon, who had been charged with having received bribe from the petitioner for the purpose of promoting him to the post of an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. It appears that the petitioner refused to give evidence incriminating himself as having given bribe to Bam Saran Das and the Superintendent of Police suspended him on 6-4-1953 and ordering his reversion as Head Constable confined him to the police Lines, Gurgaon. The petitioner on 31-4-1953 was ordered to be transferred from Jehan Khelan to Gurgaon. The enquiry against Ram Saran Das having concluded, the Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon, ordered his dismissal, from the police Force somewhere in the first week of May, 1953. On 7-5-1953 the same Superintendent of Police started an enquiry against the petitioner on the charge of giving bribe to Ram Saran Das. The petitioner represented to the Superintendent of Police that by dismissing Ram Saran Das on the ground that he had received bribe from the petitioner he (the S. P.) had clearly given his verdict regarding the matter which he now wished to enquire into and that it was only fair that the present enquiry should be conducted by the deputy Inspector General or some other officer in some neighbouring district. He made a representation on this point also to the D. I. G. by his application to him on 8-5-1953. The D. I. G. did not send any reply to the representation till the 20th May and the Superintendent of Police turned down the representation there and then on the 8th and proceeded to make the enquiry on the same day. The petitioner naturally felt nervous and perplexed on the enquiry being conducted by an officer having preconceived views and in that state of mind he refused to cross-examine P. W. 2 and also refused to make his own statement. The Superintendent of Police got enraged on this and ordered the Prosecuting inspector a subordinate of his -- to hold another enquiry against the petitioner on a charge of "refusing to cross-examine P. W. 2 Prakash Lal Katyal and for refusing to answer the questions put to him. " On the same day, i. e. , 8-5-1953, the prosecuting Inspector started the enquiry and after examining a solitary witness who was the Stenographer of the Superintendent of Police recorded his finding on the first charge of giving bribe to Ram Saran Das and found the petitioner guilty of that charge. On the same day the Prosecuting Inspector also recorded his finding on the second charge referred to above and found the petitioner guilty. The petitioner was then given the usual notices in both the cases to show cause on or before-the 30-51953, as to why he should not be dismissed. He filed his, reply on 20-5-1953, and orders of his dismissal were passed the same day in, both the cases. The petitioner thereupon filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of police, Ambala, which was rejected on 23-2-1954. He then filed a petition for revision before the Inspector General of Police, who on 20-7-1954, exonerated him of the main charge of giving bribe but maintained the dismissal on the second charge regarding which enquiry had been made by the Prosecuting Inspector. The petitioner then filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court. This was heard by a learned Single Judge and was ultimately dismissed on 24-11-1955. Before the learned Single Judge as many as eight points were raised, but the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there was very little force in any of the points with the exception of point No. 6 which related to the enquiry being made by a biased officer. The petitioner has filed the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

(3.) MR. Abnasha Singh appearing for the petitioner strenuously urged only one point,namely, that in the matter of dismissal of his client the mandatory provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution had not been compiled with, as no real opportunity had been given to his client to show cause against his dismissal. In my opinion this contention of the learned counsel must prevail and the order of dismissal of the petitioner must be quashed.