SECY OF STATE Vs. PROMATHA NATH GANGULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council from a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dinajpur, passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in this Court, for Rs. 780 by way of damages for wrongful dismissal from Government service. The case before the Court was that the plaintiff was a Sub-Inspector of Police, and as such had to investigate into several dacoities, bad livelihood cases and a gang case in the year 1921. On a confidential enquiry made as to the conduct of another police officer, it transpired from statements of some persons that the plaintiff had extorted money from various persons, and had attempted to obtain illegal gratification, by using threats of house search, arrest and other injuries. After those statements had been recorded, the plaintiff was directed to show cause why he should not be dismissed on the ground that he had obtained illegal gratification in the shape of money, by means of extortion practised on persons named in the charges framed against the plaintiff by the Superintendent of Police on 24 July 1924. It would appear that after proceedings were drawn up, the plaintiff was allowed to take copies of the statements of persons on the basis of which, the charges were framed, and some of those persons were cross-examined, during the course of the proceedings, by the plaintiff, having been summoned to appear at his instance, the plaintiff not having considered it necessary to cross-examine others.

(2.) In addition to the witnesses previously examined in the absence of the plaintiff, other witnesses were examined and cross-examined during the course of the proceedings instituted against the plaintiff, and he was dismissed from service on 7 December 1924 by the order of the Superintendent of Police. There was appeal and representation to the higher authorities; and the order of dismissal was ultimately affirmed by the Government of Bengal on 6 July 1925. The questions raised in the case before the Court below, and the points raised in this appeal, related to irregularities in the proceedings held in the matter of dismissal of the plaintiff from service, which was characterised as illegal dismissal. The claim for damages was on that basis. It was asserted that the Superintendent of Police holding the enquiry did not comply with the provisions of the Police Regulations, Bengal, Vol. 3, Rule 108(a), which lays down that witnesses shall be examined in the presence of the officers proceeded against. It was in the next place asserted that the Superintendent of Police acted illegally in not complying with the provisions of the Police Regulation, Bengal, Part 3, Rule 88(b), which lays down that in cases of misconduct arising out of, or in connexion with judicial trials and criminal proceedings, the Superintendent of Police shall not inflict any punishment without previous consultation with the District Magistrate, and the case of the plaintiff was that the proceedings arose out of allegation of bribery in connexion with Akbarpur Dacoity case.

(3.) The Judge in the Court below has held, and we are in agreement with his decision in this part of the case, that Rule 108(a) referred to above, on which the plaintiff relied, applied to the enquiry held into the plaintiff's conduct as a police officer. The question however remains whether it could be said on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as disclosed by the materials on the record, that plaintiff could claim relief by way of damages, simply by showing that the letter of the rule was not followed. In our judgment, the conduct of the plaintiff during the enquiry had to be taken into consideration in determining whether the non-examination of certain persons in his presence, during the course of the enquiry, amounted to such an infringement of the provisions of a rule of procedure, and was such an irregularity as could entitle the plaintiff to claim damages for an order of dismissal by the authorities concerned, which was ultimately confirmed by the Government of Bengal. In this connexion reference has to be made to the evidence given by the Suprerintendent of Police by whom the enquiry leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff, was held in the year 1924, as a witness in the case. According of him, the plaintiff was asked if he wanted to have the witnesses examined in his absence before charges were framed, examined again, and he was told he could do so; we see no reason to doubt the veracity of the witness on this point, although the plaintiff wanted to make out by his own evidence before the Court that he was never told that if he so wanted, he could have the witnesses previously examined in the course of preliminary enquiry, examined in chief again in his presence. There is no question that facilities were given to the plaintiff in the matter of obtaining copies of the statements of those witnesses, and all of them whom the plaintiff wanted to cross-examine during the course of the proceedings, were summoned to appear, and were cross-examined by the plaintiff.