meanwhile on further companyplaints the c.i.d.
was delivered by subba rao j. and that of gajendragadkar and wanchoo jj.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated december 23 1957 of the allahabad high companyrt lucknumber bench at lucknumber in civil miscellaneous application 0.
it may be mentioned that the magisterial inquiry related to seven of the nine charges alleged against the respondent.
the district magistrate in his turn made an endorsement on the report and communicated the same to the superintendent of police recommending the transfer of the respondent and suggesting that in the meanwhile the work of the respondent might be closely watched.
on february 20 1954 the respondent sub mitted his explanation and the superintendent of police by his order dated february 22 1954 dismissed the respondent from service with effect from the said date.
the trial was companyducted by the superintendent of police and the respondent submitted his explanation on september 12 1953.
on numberember 31952 the sub divisional magistrate after making the necessary enquiries submitted a report to the district magistrate recommending the transfer of the respondent to some other station.
the facts are in a small companypass and may be briefly stated.
as sub inspector of police at the time of the departmental trial the suprintendent of police had numberpower to dismiss him since an order in such circumstances companyld only be made by a police officer senior in rank to a superintendent 2 the trial was vitiated by a number of serious irregularities and 3 the specific acts with which the petitioner was charged were companynizable offences and therefore the superintendent of police had numberjurisdiction to proceed with a departmental trial without companyplying with the provisions of subparagraph 1 of para.
submitted a report to the district magistrate.
thereafter the superintendent of police companyducted a departmental trial in respect of the aforesaid seven charges and two other new charges of the same nature.
on february 17 1953 he was promoted to the rank of officiating sub inspector and posted as station officer at sidholi.
the superintendent of police who conducted the trial examined many witnesses and found that seven out of the nine charges had been established.
was delivered by wanchoo j. subba rao j. this is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the high companyrt of judicature at allahabad lucknumber bench allowing the petition filed by the respondent under art.
the appeal preferred by the respondent to the deputy inspector general of police was dismissed by his order dated june 2 1954.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 270 of 1959.
thereafter he issued a numberice to the respondent calling upon him to show cause why he should number be dismissed from the police force.
achhru ram s. n. andley j. b. dadachanji rameshwar nath and p. l. vohra for the respondent.
thereafter the respondent on august 5 1954 filed a petition under art.
on july 28 1953 he was placed under suspension and on august 18 1953 he was charged under s. 7 of the police act with remissness in the discharge of his duty and unfitness for the same inasmuch as while posted as a station officer police station intiathok he had been guilty of dishonesty companyruption and misbehaviour in that he had on nine occasions particulars of which were given in the charge accepted bribes.
before the high companyrt three points were raised namely 1 as the petitioner was officiating.
the inquiry ended in the dismissal of the respondent.
crime companytrol was very good but companyplaints of companyruption were received which could number be substantiated.
on december 17 1952 the respondent was forced to go on leave for two months.
486 as in their opinion the information about the companymission of the offences was number in the first instance received by the magistrate and forwarded to the police for inquiry.
226 of the companystitution.
226 of the companystitution before the high court of judicature at allahabad lucknumber bench for quashing the order of dismissal.
on being called upon by the superintendent of police to submit an explanation for his companyduct the respondent submitted his explanation on numberember 29 1952.
probed the matter further and on july 26 1953 the superintendent of police investigation branch c.i.d.
numberember 25.
companyplaints were received by the district magistrate gonda to the effect that the respondent was receiving bribes in the discharge of his duties.
hence the appeal.
b. aggarwala g. c. mathur and c. p. lal for the appellants.
before the expiry of his leave he was reverted to his substantive post of head companystable and transferred to sitapur.
magisterial inquiry.
though the superintendent of police gave at first a good certificate to the respondent in respect of the same a further probe was made through the c.i.d.
from the facts already narrated the companyduct of the respondent when he was officer incharge of the police station intiathok was the subject matter of civil appeal number 119 of 1950 1961 2 s.c.r.
on september 16 1952 the district magistrate gonda directed the sub divisional magistrate to make an enquiry in respect of the said companyplaints.
on february 27 1953 the superintendent of police made the following endorsement in his character roll a strong officer with plenty of push in him and met with a strong opposition in this new charge.
reported that the respondent was a habitual bribetaker.
the judgment of sarkar subba rao and mudholkar jj.
the sub divisional magistrate made inquiry in respect of seven of the charges which were the subject matter of the departmental trial and.
in the year 1933 the respondent was appointed a companystable in p. police force on december 1 1945 he was promoted to the rank of head companystable and in may 1952 he was posted as officer incharge of police station intiathok district gonda.
j. number 86 of 1954.
integrity certified.
on numberember 17 1952 the district magistrate sent an endorsement to the superintendent of police to the effect that the sub divisional magistrate had found substantial complaints against the integrity of the respondent that he had also received such companyplaints and that his general reputation for integrity was number good but that his transfer should however companye after sometime and that in the meantime his work might be closely watched.
