He had also examined seven defence witnesses.
The appellant also alleged certain violations of the rules under the Police Regulations in Bengal, mainly by number making the charges or their particulars clear to him and by number affording due opportunity to the appellant to offer his defence or to cross examine witnesses.
Govinda Mukhoty, Rathin Day and G. S. Chatterjee, for the appellant.
The appellants petition was dismissed on 11 9 1957 by a learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court on two preliminary grounds firstly, that there was inordinate delay on the part of the appellant in approaching the High Court and, secondly, that the objection to the jurisdiction of the dismissing authority, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, was number taken, in the companyrse of Departmental proceedings, so that it companyld number be allowed to be raised before the High Court for the first time.
After the report of the Enquirying Officer against the appellant, he was dismissed from the Police Force by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, S. Mukherji, on 1 8 1951.
The appellant had obtained a certificate of fitness of the case for appeal to this Court under Article 133 1 c of the Consti tution, because it was companytended on behalf of the appellant that, as, the application under Article 226 of the Constitution had been made within a period of 3 years from the original order of dismissal, a suit, if filed for a declaration that the dismissal was wrongful, would have been within time.
He also stated that fearing harassment and oppression by the Police he went away to the Andaman Islands in November, 1952.
He alleged that the Assistant Commissioner charged the appel lant, immediately on accosting him, with dereliction of his duties, with disobedience of the order to remain at the post of his duty, with carrying out the search perfunctorily, with disloyalty and giving away of information of proposed searches to offending members of the public so that the purpose of the search, which was said to be detection of spurious ration cards, may be defeated.
The appellant also assorted that he was harassed by false and frivolous criminal proceedings under the Essential Supplies Act and under Section 124 A I.P.C. in October, 1951, due to this grudge of the Deputy Commissioner against him.
Hence, the explanation for delay givenby the appellant was rejected by the learned Judge.
Ataur Rahman, when he was companying back, after taking tea, to the place of search, but he was still at a distance of about one furlong from the assigned place of duty.
The appeal preferred by the appellant to the Inspector General of Police was also dismissed on 27 10 1951.
The five prosecution witnesses relied upon by the prosecution were cross examined by the appellant.
of West Bengal.
He had filed his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on 9th September, 1953.
It was stated that the appellant was immediately suspended and the Assistant Commissioner Ataur Rahman was appointed the Enquiry Officer.
Such strange companyduct, indicating a possible,of guilt even if the appellants assertions companyld be true,, was number found to be natural.
On appeal from the decision of the learned Single Judge, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissed it principally on the ground of inordinate delay despite the fact that the Division Bench was disposed to hold that rules of natural justice had been violated in the Departmental Enquiry against the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C. A. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Beg, J. The appellant was a Sub Inspector of Police serving in the Enforcement Branch of the Calcutta Police on 20th May 1951, when he was ordered by S. Mukherji, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Enforcement Branch, to search a house at 13/2 Sir Guru Das Road, in Kankurgachi Basti.
Permission to call other evidence, companysidered irrelevant and to cross examine some witnesses, who had number been relied upon by the prosecution, was number given.
The appellant alleged that he was met by the Assistant Commissioner of Police.
44 of 1958.
The appellant had, however, been duly served with show cause numberices at two stages and had produced evidence which the Enquirying Officer companysidered relevant.
Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted a memorial to the Govt.
K. Chakravarty and Prodyat Kumar Chakravarty, for the respondents.
1162 of 1967.
He companyld number reasonably be believed to be uncertain on such a point.
He alleged that the search companycluded at 6 30 a.m., and, thereafter, he had gone to take tea with the permission and or knowledge of his immediate superior Sub Inspector S. Bose.
Appeal by certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution of India from the judgment and order dated 14th May 1963 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Order No.
We fail to understand what the appellant exactly meant when he swore, in his affidavit, that he had gone to take tea with the permission and or knowledge of his immediate superior officer.
Furthermore, the appellant alleged that the proceeding was the result of the bias and ill will of Deputy Commissioner of Police, S. Mukherji, against him, because the appellant had taken some proceedings against antisocial elements who were, according to him, friendly with the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
