NAND SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition on behalf of Nand Shan kar under Article 226 of the constitution of India for the grant of writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction against the State of Rajasthan, Respondent No. 1, Inspector-General of Police, respondent No. 2 and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Res pondent No. 3, for quashing the order of dismissal of the petitioner dated the 11th October, 1952, pass ed by Respondent No. 3.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that after he had completed his course of training at the police Training School, Kishengarh, in the session 1950-51, he was appointed by respondent No. 2 as a probationary Sub-Inspector in the Rajasthan Police Force, jaipur Range, by his order No. 11-A1-3551/3897 dated the 20/21st December, 1951, with effect from the 2nd of December, 1951, and that the petitioner was confirmed as Sub-Inspector of Police by Respondent No. 2 by his order No. F/ii/a8-25-52/2910 dated the 2nd September, 1952. The petitioner was posted at various places. Ultimately he was appointed an officer Incharge of the Police Station, Weir, District Bharatpur in the month of june 1953, in which capacity he worked till the 20th of March, 1954. The petitioner was served with an order dated the 24th of April, 1954, by the superintendent of Police informing him that he had been put under suspension pending enquiry into his conduct. The charge against the petitioner was that he had hushed up the enquiry relating to the murder of one Kaila Brahmin of village Pali by accepting illegal gratification, and that he had refused to register the case of murder and had committed other irregularities in the investigation of that case. The departmental enquiry against the petitioner was held by Shri Guman Singh, Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur and the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Shahpura, and on the completion of the enquiry, Respondent No. 3 served the petitioner with the notice dated the 17th of September, 1954, stating that the charges of remissness and negligence in the discharge of his duties while the petitioner was posted at Police Station, Weir, were found proved and the petitioner was required to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted his reply to the notice but Respondent No. 3 dismissed the petitioner from the police force by his order dated the 11th October, 1954. The petitioner went in appeal to Respondent 2, but' it was rejected. The petitioner's appeal to the Government also failed. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal mainly on two grounds; firstly, on the ground that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the Rajas-than Police Force by Respondent No. 2 by his order dated the 20/21st december, 1951, and so his dismissal by Respondent No. 3 is in contravention of article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India as the authority dismissing him was subordinate to that by which he was appointed. . Secondly, on the ground that the Assistant Superintendent of Police who held the departmental enquiry against the petitioner had no jurisdiction to do so as only an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police could hold the enquiry having regard to Rule 89 (k) of the Rajasthan Police Regulation, 1948, and Notification No. C-l 8 5-52/5302-63-64 dated the 15/16th September, 1952, the said rule and the notification having the force of law. There are some other grounds mentioned in the writ petition, but they were not argued at the bar. The arguments are confined to the two grounds referred to above. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that the order of dismissal dated the 11th October, 1954, passed by Respondent No. 3 be quashed. Notice of the writ petition was served on the respondents and respondent No. 1 submitted the reply. In reply to the first contention, it is urged that the petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 2 as Sub-Inspector on probation of 18 months by order dated the 20/2lst December, 1951, Such appointment is no appointment within the meaning of law and is always subject to confirmation. After the completion of 18 months, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police confirmed him from the 1st June, 1953, as is evident from the order No. P. V. 17-I952/6628 dated the 15th July, 1953. The appointing authority was not Inspector-General of Police, but the Deputy inspector-General of Police and as he had been dismissed by the same authority, there was no contravention of Article 311 (1 ).

(3.) TO the second contention of the petitioner, it is urged on behalf of Respondent no. 1- that the proceedings for the departmental enquiry were drawn up by Shri guman Singh, Superintendent of Police himself as required under R. 89 of the rajasthan Police Regulations, 1948. The aforesaid officer handed over the copy of the charge of misconduct to the petitioner on the 2nd May, 1954, and asked him if he pleaded guilty. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and requested for enquiry. Thereafter, several prosecution witnesses were examined by him. " Later on Shri S. C. Tandon, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Jaipur, was directed to record further evidence in the case and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Jaipur range, passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner, after due notice under article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India to him.