KAMTA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a confirmed Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and posted at Garkha in the district of Saran. His services were, however, terminated by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Range, by his order dated the 8th of September, 1966 (An-nexure 9), in the following circumstances. On the 23rd of October, 1961, while the petitioner was still posted at Garkha Police Station, a first information report was lodged to the effect that a cow belonging to the informant Asargi Rai was stolen and that one of the thieves was apprehended by the complainant and some other persons. The cow was taken away from the custody of the thieves and the matter was reported at the police station and the cow was also brought to the police station by the informant. The Officer-in-charge of the Police Station Nandji Singh was away at the time when the information was lodged and, accordingly, it was recorded by the petitioner. The Offieer-in-charge returned to the Police Station at 9 P. M. that night. On the next day, 24th October, 1961, the petitioner left the Police Station for investigation of some other case and returned at 5 P. M. The charge against the petitioner was that on the 23rd of October, 1961 itself, when Asarfi Rai requested him that the cow should be released as she was pregnant, and some harm might come to her if she was not released in time, the petitioner told the informant Asarfi Rai that if he wanted to have the cow back without any security, he would have to pay Rs. 100/-, and in case he was prepared to furnish security, he would have to pay a reduced sum of Rs. 50/-. The informant expressed his inability to oblige the petitioner and hence the cow was sent to the pound. There she died after 2 1/2 months.

(2.) The complainant Asarfi Rai addressed certain letters to the Superintendent of Police, Saran; the Chief Minister of Bihar and the District Magistrate, Saran, complaining of the conduct of the petitioner in trying to extort illegal gratification from the complainant. An enquiry was ordered to be made by the Superintendent of Police through the Circle Inspector. A. Masih. The Inspector held an enquiry and reported that the charge against the petitioner was groundless. The complainant himself had the reputation of being a thief and since the petitioner refused to release the cow to him, he made a grievance of it and, being dissatisfied With the Assistant Sub-Inspec-'tor, sent letters to various authorities in order to put him in trouble. The report was dated the 7th of March, 1962. The letters were written by Asarfi Rai on the 28th of October, 1961. According to the petitioner, the report of the Circle Inspector was considered by the Superintendent of Police, Saran, and being satisfied with the result of the enquiry, he did not proceed further in the matter. On the 26th of November, 1963, however, it appears that the complainant Asarfi Rai wrote to the Anti-Corruption Department and an enquiry was started by the department which was entrusted to Thakur Ram Chandra Singh, Sub-Inspector of the Anti-Corruption Department. He was annoyed with the petitioner and accordingly he submitted an incorrect report as to the petitioner having really demanded the amount alleged by Asarfi Rai and then a proceeding against the petitioner and an enquiry was held by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Saran, B. Mahton, who came to the conclusion that the petitioner did demand the amount. Acting upon this enquiry report, the Deputy Inspector General, Northern Range, ordered the dismissal of the petitioner.

(3.) A number of questions have been raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the application. He hag referred to the record of service of the petitioner which is exceptionally good as he received a large number of rewards for fearless discharge of duties as a police officer and was actually considered fit for promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police. It has also been urged that the report of A. Masih having once been accepted by the Superintendent of Police, Saran, as mentioned above, another proceeding against him was incompetent as has been held by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Lal Audhraj Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1967-2 Lab LJ 531 = (AIR 1967 Madh Pra 284). Mr. K. P. Vcrma has-drawn our attention in this connection .to the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Saran, in which, on the 31st of May, 1962, he said on the report being presented to him "file". It is not-clear as to what is intended by that. Mr. Verma's suggestion is that it may not necessarily imply that the Superintendent of Police accepted the report of the Circle Inspector A. Masih. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, however, contended that if he were not satisfied by the report, it was open to the Superintendent of Police either to order further enquiry or to start a proceeding. On the contrary, nothing was done about it at least till the 26th of November, 1963, which means that when he used the word "file", he intended to say that no further action was to betaken in the matter. This would amount to acceptance of the report of A. Masih by the Superintendent of Police. In this connection, a question has been raised before us as to whether acceptance of the report by the Superintendent of Police would amount to condonation of the offence, if any, committed by the petitioner, by the department, because the appointing authority in the case of the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police is the Deputy Inspector General of Police snd condonation, if any, should have been done by him before it could be regarded as effective condonation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, however, drawn our attention to the Police Manual, Volume I, page 327, Rule 825 (d) of which lays down what punishment could be awarded by the Superintendent of Police upon a police officer below the rank of Inspector of Police. The petitioner was merely an Assistant Sub-Inspector and short of termination or dismissal of service any other punishment could have been awarded by the Superintendent of Police himself. In that view of the matter, it cannot be regarded that acceptance of the report by him would not amount to condonation of the acts alleged to have perpetrated by the petitioner or, at any rate, it must be taken as clear satisfaction on the part of the Superintendent of Police that no ground was made out for further proceeding against the petitioner. In our opinion, however, it is not necessary to deal with this point more elaborately because the matter can be disposed of on a shorter ground on the facts of this case.