SHIVA BHIKSHUK MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant brought a suit in the court of the first Additional Subordinate Judge Patna, on the 15th of February, 1954, for a declaration that his demotion from the rank of subedar-major to that of sergeant as ordered with effect from the 14th of November, 1950, was void and illegal and the order of his dismissal passed on the 7th of April, 1953, by the Deputy Inspector General of Police was likewise void and without jurisdiction. He also prayed for a decree for Rs. 3,118 on account of arrears of pay with interest at 6 per cent per annum, and in the alternative, for a decree for Rs. 3118 by way of damages with interest at 6 per cent per annum. His case was that he was appointed as a literate constable in the Bihar Police in 1933, and by his own merit and efficiency he was promoted in quick succession to the rank of assistant sub-inspector, sub-inspector, sergeant, subedar and subedar-major by 1948. He was twice nominated for the post of Wing Commander which is equivalent to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. While he was at Muzaffarpur in the Bihar Military Police as subedar-major, in November 1950 a Board of Enquiry was constituted to enquire about certain allegations against him arising from an anonymous petition in respect of certain alleged acts done by him while he was at Phulwari Sarif previously. During that enquiry he received an order from the Inspector General "of Police demoting him to the rank of sergeant, that is, he was reduced by two ranks with effect from the 14th November, 1950, and was transferred as sergeant to Hazaribagh. He was not given an opportunity to show cause against that punishment. On the 7th of May, 1951, he was asked by the Deputy Inspector General of Police to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service for raising subscription for the purchase of a truck and some other charges. The departmental proceeding ensuing thereupon was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Palamau, who found the plaintiff guilty of the charges framed against him and after giving another chance to him to show cause against the proposed punishment of dismissal, the final order of dismissal was passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police who, however, was not the authority who had appointed the plaintiff to the post of Subedar-major. The plaintiff asserted that the allegations leading to his dismissal were all false and mala fide and the departmental enquiry was vitiated by not giving him proper opportunities to defend himself adequately.

(2.) The State of Bihar, the Inspector General and the Deputy Inspector General of Police were made defendants in the action and two written statements were filed on behalf of them. They pleaded that the plaintiff was holding the post of a sergeant till the 31st July, 1946 and from the 1st August, 1946 he was allowed to officiate as subedar and thereafter to officiate as subedar-major with effect from the 9th January, 1948. Due to his unsatisfactory conduct while holding the temporary post of subedar-major, he was found unfit to hold the post in the gazetted rank and was reverted to his substantive post of sergeant on the recommendation of the Commandant and the Deputy Inspector General, Armed Forces, under Rule 665 of the Bihar and Orissa Policy Manual. The Inspector General of Police (defendant No. 2) was competent to declare him unfit for the post of subedar and subedar-major. In a departmental proceeding he bad been found guilty, He was dismissed from service by the final order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, on the 7th of April, 1953, after giving him sufficient opportunity to show cause against that action. There was no defect in the proceedings. Both the dismissal and demotion were legal acts. The reversion did not attach any stigma or impose any penalty upon the plaintiff. It was not by way of punishment nor any penal consequence followed therefrom to him.

(3.) On these pleadings parties went to trial. The plaintiff examined himself while the defendants brought four witnesses. Several documents were marked on both sides as exhibits. They mostly appertain to the action taken by the Government against the plaintiff in regard to his reversion and dismissal. The service book of the plaintiff was also proved in the case.