KAPUR CHAND Vs. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner was a Sub-Inspector of Police under the Himachal Pradesh Administration. On 1-1-1960 he was promoted to the fourth selection grade. During the period from 2-11-1960 and 27-11-1960 he was posted as S. H. O. Arki. By an order of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Headquarters dated 27-111960 he was placed under suspension as a departmental inquiry was contemplated against him for grave misconduct in the investigation of the case F. I. R. No. 21 dated 19-11-1960 under sections 457 and 380, I. P. C,, P.S. Arki in which case the deceased Jagar Nath was a suspect vide Annexure 'A' to the petition. During the course of investigation of that case the petitioner was alleged to have interrogated and in conjunction with constables Ganga Ram and Bal Kishan to have tortured the aforesaid Jagar Nath who succumbed to his injuries on 20-11-1960. By a subsequent Order of the Inspector General of Police Himachal Pradesh dated 2212- 1960, the petitioner was reverted to the time scale with effect from 1-12-1960 vide Annexure 'B'. On 27-3-1961 the Superintendent of Police Mahasu served on the petitioner summary of allegations Annexure 'C' and required hint to show cause why suitable action be not taken against him. Prior to the initiation of the departmental inquiry a case under Section 302, I. P. C., based on the same allegations which form the subject-matter of the departmental inquiry was registered against the petitioner and the two constables Ganga Ram and Bal Kishan and investigation of that case was entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Headquarters. Under orders of the District Magistrate Mahasu a magisterial inquiry under section 176, Cri. P. C., into the allegations about torture was held by Shri Prakash Chand, the then Magistrate first class, Kasumpti. When the summary of the allegations referred to above was served upon the petitioner he represented thai a departmental inquiry should not be instituted in view of the fact that a case under Section302, I. P. C., had already been registered against him and was pending investigation. The request was, however, turned down and thereafter the petitioner filed the present petition.

(3.) The petitioner's prayers are that the orders made by the respondent No. 1 reverting him to the time scale be quashed and the holding of departmental inquiry be stayed. The main grounds on which the first prayer is based are that the order of reversion was tantamount to punishment and as no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed order of reversion it was void and ineffective. The stay of the holding of the departmental inquiry has been sought on the following grounds:--(1) That the petitioner has already been punished by being reverted to the time scale and a double punishment will be inflicted on him if he is punished as a result of departmental inquiry (2) that a departmental inquiry could not be held without the specific order of the District Magistrate which order was wanting and (3) that departmental inquiry should not be held during the pendency of investigation of a case registered against him when both were based on the same allegations.