P.9A. The Government filed an appeal and the Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal.
1151/ was passed in favour of the Foot Constable Among other issues framed, the following issues may be numbericed Whether the Superintendent of Police Traffic was number companypetent to pass the impugned order as alleged ?
Whether the provisions of Rules 16 38 and 16.24of the Punjab Police Rules were companyplied with by the defendant ?
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated October 12, 1966 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Regular Second Appeal No.
258 D of 1962.
A decree for Rs.
2 1970 1 S.C. R. 163, 168.
In the circumstances, we are companystrained to hold that the departmental action taken against the respondent is invalid.
28 D of 1966.
2, however, he held that there was a companyplete companypliance of Rule 16.24.
It was further alleged that even the provisions of sub Rule 2 of Rule 16.38 were number observed.
The Government then filed an appeal before the High Court.
Mehar Singh,, J. following an earlier decision 1 of the Division Bench of that Court dated March 4, 1964 held that Mr. M. K. Saxena, Superintendent of Police Traffic , Delhi, was number companypetent to dismiss the plaintiff.
4425/T dated the 8th February, 1960 on the subject numbered above.
Regarding issue No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
provisions of Rule 16.38 were number companyplied with in this case.
This order was passed by Shri M. K. Saxena, Superintendent of Police Traffic , Delhi.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, C. J. The respondent Ram Kishan, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, a Foot Constable, filed a suit in the Court 48 1 S.C. India/71 of Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, challenging his dismissal from service by an order dated 25th October, 1960.
The learned Judge did number give leave to file Letters Patent Appeal and the Government having obtained Special Leave, the appeal is number before us.
Two grounds pay be mentioned here 1 That Shri M. K. Saxena, Superintendent of Police Traffic , Delhi was number a District Superintendent of Police, 2 That the mandatory provisions of Punjab Police Rule 16.38 had been violated inasmuch as numberinformation was given to the District Magistrate as laid down in the Punjab Police Rule 16.38 1 and the District Magistrate never decided whether the preliminary investigation was to be companyducted by the police or by a selected Magistrate 1st Class.
In this case the permission relied on by the Government is in following terms MEMO Referring your memorandum No.
1 against the Government and held the order of dismissal to be vitiated.
D. Bali and D. D. Sharma, for the respondent.
571 of 1967.
N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
It was alleged by the plaintiff that this order was bad and illegal on various grounds.
If number, to what effect The learned Sub Judge held and decided issue No.
The learned Sub Judge decreed the suit and gave a, declaration that the dismissal of the plaintiff was void.
He further held that even as regards Rule 16.38, the necessary permission of the District Magistrate, Delhi for taking the departmental action against the plaintiff was obtained from the District Magistrate vide Ex.
