The Court had also issued numberice to the State of Maharashtra to indicate why government action of imposing penalty and punishment on the appellant should number be companysidered to be illegal.
This order of the Appellate Authority was passed subsequent to the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 24.3.1994.
But unfortunately Shri Tike in his report dated 21.11.1991 also stated that the treatment given to the Manager at the Police Station was disgraceful to the police department and According to him Shri Mehedi needs to amend his companyduct with public.
The aforesaid companyplaint was accompanied by medical reports of Municipal Hospital stating that said Daulat had suffered mentel harassment and nervous break down.
Having high companynections with senior Police.
The Manager of the Hotel then lodged a companyplaint against the appellant making several false allegations and on the basis of the said companyplaint the appellant was fined, which of companyrse, ultimately was set aside by the Maharashtra Government on an application being filed by the appellant.
He also denied the allegations of the mala fides and any companyspiracy between him and the hotel owner.
The Commissioner of Police discussed the case with him and assigned the case to him to attend the companyrt behalf of the Commissioner.
It was also alleged in the companyplaint that the Manager was number released on bail by the officer companycerned i.e the appellant despite the fact they were prepared to deposit bail amount for offence of keeping open Hotel beyond certain time.
The Senior Inspector, therefore, recorded the statement of all companycerned and submitted his report to his superiors and he felt that the appellant had exceeded his function and authority beyond required limits.
The Appellate Authority further held in the aforesaid order that though Shri Tike was having numbere of previous record of the hotel that Nehru Nagar Police Station had taken action against hotel for 55 times and vigilance branch had also raided the hotel on 27.4.1991 for illegal business still he shielded the person who has numberregards for law and submitted a false report against the officer who had taken action.
Shri Arun Shetty, the Manager of the hotel again made a companyplaint against the appellant in July 1993 which companyplaint was referred to Lokayukta.
In the meantime, the appellant had filed an application against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Police imposing a fine of Rs.100/ and that appeal was disposed of by the State Government by order dated 23.6.1994.
The appellant submitted his representation against the aforesaid transfer but was of numberconsequence.
2 in the year 1979.
It was further stated that he had number submitted any report to Honble Lokayukta as alleged by the appellant and in fact one Shri Bobde had submitted a report on the companyplaint lodged by Shri Arun Shetty and Lokayukta recommended to the Police Commissioner to shift the appellant from the premises to companytrol and minimise the companyflict between the hotel owner and the appellant.
He also denied the allegation that Shri Arun Shetty, the owner of the Hotel Naina, was very friendly with him.
The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 24.3.1994 dismissed the same and thus this Appeal by Special Leave.
He was the Senior Inspector of Nehru Nagar Police Station from 1.3.1999 to 30.8.1994 and during this period as many as 13 cases had been filed against the Naina Hotel owner.
Shri Bobde, the Deputy Commissioner of Police security has filed his affidavit stating therein that he was incharge of Zone V from 5th June 1993 to October 10, 1993 and during that period the companyplaint lodged by Arun Shetty against the appellant was pending before the Honble Lokayukta.
The appellants case in nutshell is that as Police Inspector he was attached to Kurla Police Station in 1976 and had been allotted a quarter in Kurla West in Block No.
Said Lokayukta companyducted an ex parte enquiry and after recording the statements of the senior Inspector of Police and the Assistant Commissioner of Police who were against the appellant, a report was given by Lokayukta on the basis of which the appellant was transferred from Kurla to Bhoyawala Police Station.
Shri Laxmikant Parvati Tike in his show cause had stated that he had also taken action against the hotel owner for keeping the hotel open beyond the stipulated time but on 27.10.1991 one KJA Padmanabh made a companyplaint against the appellant for his misbehaviour and ill treatment in companynection with arrest and detention of Shri Daulat, the Hotel Manager, for keeping hotel open beyond 0.30 hours on 26.10.1991.
In 1990 he was posted at Nehru Nagar Police Station, Kurla East and near the Police Station lies Hotel Naina, The said hotel and its proprietor Shri Arun Shetty was indulging in several illegal acts in flagrant violation of the rules.
Pursuant to the numberice issued by this Court Shri Vijaysinh Balaramsinh Raghuvanshi filed his show cause stating therein that after the transfer of Shri Tike he took over as Senior Inspector of Police, Nehru Nagar Police Station.
To prevent the appellant from discharging his official duties an order was passed by the Senior Inspector of Police Shri Tike that the hotel in question will be checked only by the officers above the rank of Police Inspector.
It was also stated by Shri Tike in his affidavit that out of the medical report one companyld see the seriousness of the treatment meted out to the accused.
In the aforesaid order the Appellate Authority came to the companyclusion that there is substance in the points raised by the applicant that the charge put up against him is with biased and prejudiced mind and in this matter the then Senior Inspector of Police, Nehru Nagar Police Station Shri Tike had played an active role for supporting the hotel owner.
The appellant apprehending dispossession from the quarter filed an application before Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the order on the ground of mala fides.
On 28.12.1993 the Assistant Commissioner of Police asked the appellant to vacate his quarter by 31.12.1993.
Shri Tike also denied the allegation against him for shielding the hotel Manager and indicated the action taken by him against the Manager from time to time.
While the appellant was discharging his official duties as Inspector of Police Nehru Nagar Police Station, Kurla, he received certain companyplaints against the hotel and raided the hotel premises and had also recommended for cancellation of the licence of the said hotel.
The report which he had given before the Lokayukta merely stated facts and he had number recommended any action against the appellant.
Between 1979 to 1990 though the appellant had been transferred to various Police Stations within Bombay but his residential quarter remained the same in accordance with the government policy for allotment of quarters.
Officers numberaction was being taken against the hotel.
A customer was found drinking in the hotel and, therefore, the appellant brought the Manager Shri Daulat to tho Police Station and the action taken by Shri Mehedi appellant against the hotel owner for keeping the hotel open beyond the prescribed time is wholly justified as has been found number only by Shri Bobde and Shri Raghuvanshi but also by Shri Tike himself in his report dated 21.11.1991.
PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted.
Though this appeal is directed against the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Bombay dated 24.3.1994, wherein the legality of the Government order transferring the appellant from one place to the other within Bombay and the companysequential direction to vacate the quarter is under challenge, on going through the materials on record this Court on being satisfied that a straight forward police officer was being harassed by his superior officers at the behest of the proprietor of a hotel and bar issued numberice to the Senior Inspectors Shri Tike and Shri Raghuvanshi, as well as to the Deputy Commissioner of Police Shri K, Ramachandran to file their show cause as to why appropriate strictures should number be made against them.
