G S BROCA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition calls in question an order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jammu Range, as early as 12 -11 -1957, a copy of the order is Annexure ËœEâ„¢ to the petition. The circumstances in which the impugned order came to be passed, and the facts which necessitated the present petition are summarised as under : - The petitioner was serving in the Police Department as an officiating Sub -Inspector in the year 1957. In the month of May 1957 he was posted as Officer incharge Police Post, Satwari. While incharge of the said Police Post, the petitioner received a first information report regarding an offence under Section 457 of the R.P.C. In the course of the investigation, which ensued, the petitioner preceded to village Ghaur in Tehsil Akhnoor on 4 -5 -1957 to conduct a search of the house of one, Gogi Sweeper, a resident of the said village. He conducted the search but no part of the property, alleged to be stolen in the case, was recovered. In the course of the search, however, the petitioner recovered one unlicensed muzzle loading country made gun, one dagger on which words US and true temper 1944 were engraved, a canvass cover of the dagger, one OG mosquito net, one O.G. Blouse on which the name of one Sepoy Kapal Dev was written and Government Currency Notes of the value of Rs.140/ -. These articles, it was later alleged, were taken possession of by petitioner, and brought to the Police Camp but were returned to Gogi on the following day. Sometime later the petitioner made a report against one, Sardha Ram constable No. 641 alleging that the said constable was guilty of misconduct in as much as he had not made a true statement of facts as a prosecution witness in some other criminal case, which the petitioner had investigated. In the course of the proceedings thus initiated the constable made a counter complaint against the petitioner to one, Shri Fateh Hussan Shah, the then Superintendent of Police, Jammu by bringing to his notice that the articles recovered by the petitioner from the house of Gogi in the course of his house search while investigation FIR No. 73/57 were return to him by the Petitioner on the following day. On having taken notice of these facts the Superintendent of Police aforesaid issued a direction to the Sub -Inspector Police holding charge of the Police Station, Akhnoor, to proceed to village Ghaur and again search the house of Gogi sweeper. In the search conducted by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Akhnoor, all the articles alleged to have been earlier recovered by the petitioner excepting the currency notes were recovered. On receipt of a report from the S.H.O. Police Station, Akhnoor, the Superintendent of Police, Jammu, initiated formal proceedings against the Petitioner and in the course of these proceedings examined a number of witnesses some of whom made statements implicating the petitioner. After holding a preliminary enquiry the Superintendent of Police, Jammu, framed a charge -sheet against the petitioner on the basis of the evidence recorded by him in the course of the preliminary enquiry. An explanation to the charge sheet was also invited by the Superintendent of Police from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted one in which he stated that the articles in question not being in any way connected with the investigation of F.I.R. No. 73/57 it was not legally permissible to seize the same. He relied upon an extract from the Madras Criminal Intelligence Gazettee dated 28 -10 -1953 which had earlier been circulated by the D. I. G., Jammu, under his endorsement No. 3979/86/GB dated 13 -11 -1953. It appears that the Superintendent of Police, Jammu, considering himself not competent to impose an appropriate punishment on the petitioner submitted the case to the Deputy Inspector General of Police with a recommendation that the petitioner be reverted to the rank of a head constable. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jammu, after receipt of the papers from the Superintendent of Police, Jammu, sent for two more witnesses namely Gogi sweeper and Anant Ram Lambardar. On the date these witnesses attended the office of the D. I. G. the D. I.G. was out of station. Their statements, therefore, could not be recorded. The witnesses, however, were directed to file affidavits duly attested by a Magistrate. Later it appears that the D. I.G. on a consideration of the circumstances of the case found the petitioner guilty of misconduct in not having seized the unlicensed muzzle loading country made gun. He consequently reverted the petitioner to his substantive post of Head -constable and further reduced the petitionerâ„¢s pay by Rs. 8/ - P.M. (from Rs.84/ - to Rs.76/ - for a period of one year). With this punishment the petitioner was reinstated with effect from 8 -11 -1957 and the period of suspension was treated as leave of whatever kind due to him. A formal order passed by the D. I. G. imposing this punishment on the petitioner is Annexure ËœFâ„¢ to this petition.

(2.) THIS order left the petitioner aggrieved. He, therefore, filed a review petition before the D.I.G. on the ground that two punishments could not have been awarded to him for one offence. The contention prevailed with the D.I.G. who accepted the review petition and withdraw the punishment of reservation to the substantive rank of a Head -constable. The punishment regarding reduction in pay was however maintained. Subsequently on being informed that at the relevant time the petitioner was getting a salary of Rs.95/ - the D.I.G. modified his order and held that the petitionerâ„¢s pay would stand reduced from Rs.95/ - to Rs.87/ -. This order is No. 1197 of 1958 dated 30 -7 -1958.

(3.) EVEN after the withdrawal of punishment of reduction in rank to the post of a Head -constable the petitioner did not feel satisfied. He challenged the legality of the order passed by the D.I.G. before the I.G.P. in appeal. The appeal however did not succeed A revision was thereafter brought the Government against the order of the D.I.G. The after brought before Government on 29th September, 1961. The Government did not choose to dispose of the revision application, for more than 9 years which necessitated the filing of a writ petition in this court seeking a direction to the Government to dispose of the revision. In that writ petition the Advocate General appeared on behalf of the State and gave an undertaking that the revision would be disposed of by the Government within one month from the date of the order.