POONAMRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ application by Poonamram an ex head constable against the State by which the order of the Inspector General of Police dated the 21st May, 1955, discharging him from service from the 1st June, 1955, has been challenged as being beyond jurisdiction.

(2.) The material facts out of which this application arises may be shortly stated as follows. The petitioner Poonamram appears to have been appointed as a Head Constable in the former State of Sirohi, some time in 1935, though the order of his original appointment has not been produced before us. Thereafter as a result of the integration of the State of Sirohi with the State of Rajasthan, he was also confirmed as a Head Constable by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. He was posted at the Saroopganj police outpost, District Sirohi, at the relevant time. On the 14th August, 1954. the Sub-Inspector Sultan Khan happened to visit Saroopganj outpost at about 5 A. M. The Sub-Inspector stayed at Saroopganj till 9 A. M. but the petitioner was found lying in bed until that time. Thereafter the Sub-Inspector left the outpost for some work and then returned to it at 2-30 P, M. The petitioner was still found absent from the outpost, and it appeared from an entry in the general diary that he had left for patrolling duty. The Sub-Inspector suspected this entry to be false, and, therefore, he deputed a constable to find out from the house of the petitioner whether he was there. It was found that the petitioner was at his house lying in bed with a bottle of liquor by his side. Consequently on the 25th August, 1954, certain charges were framed against the petitioner and a departmental enquiry was ordered to be made. The enquiry was made by the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi. He reported that the petitioner had made a false entry in the Roznamcha for the 14-8-1954, regarding his proceeding on patrol duty and he also came to the conclusion that there was suspicion against the petitioner as respects the second charge, namely, that he was drinking liquor during working hours on 14-8-1954. The, Superintendent, therefore, having reported the matter as above, the Deputy Inspector General of Police examined the entire case and by his order dated the 22nd/23rd October, 1954 reduced the petitioner to the rank of a constable for a period of two years from the 22-10-1954. The petitioner then preferred an appeal from the aforesaid order to the Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan. The Inspector General seemed to he of the view that the punishment awarded by the Deputy Inspector General of Police was inadequate, and, therefore, he ordered a show-cause notice to go to the petitioner why he should not be discharged from the service. The petitioner filed a representation in the matter on the 5-5-1955, but this was not considered satisfactory. Consequently, by his order dated 21-5-1955, the Inspector General of Police enhanced the punishment awarded to the petitioner by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and ordered that he should be discharged from service with effect from 1-6-1955. Thereafter, the petitioner presented an appeal to the Government of Rajasthan on 10-1-1956. This appeal was dismissed as barred by time by an order issued under the signature of the Home Secretary dated 18-5-1957. As the appellant in the aforesaid order was referred to as an ex-head-constable of Tonk, and there were certain other accidental errors therein, a further order was issued sometime in November, 1957, wherein the discrepancies were corrected. The petitioner then filed the present petition in this court on 5-31958, and his prayer is that the order passed by the Inspector General of Police should be quashed as being beyond his jurisdiction. The State has resisted the petition.

(3.) The main contention raised by the petitioner in this writ application is that the order of the Inspector General of Police dated 21-5-1955, passed on the petitioner's appeal to the said officer against the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police was entirely without authority and jurisdiction inasmuch as it enhanced the punishment awarded to the petitioner by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, and, was, therefore, illegal.