Holding that the charge against the respondent was serious and had on the evidence been adequately proved, in his view the only punishment which the respondent deserved was of dismissal from the police force.
This report was companysidered by the authority companypetent to impose punishment and a provisional companyclusion that the respondent merited punishment of dismissal for the charges held established by the report was recorded.
It is the case of the State that as a result of torture by police companystables Nos.
A companyy of the report of the Enquiry Officer was sent to the respondent and he was called upon to submit his representation against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him.
226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction quashing the proceedings of the Inspector General of Police including his order dated September 24, 1955, and the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated March 10, 1955, and for such other orders as the Court may deem fit.
The record of the case before the Sub Magistrate was called by the Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, suo motu.
The charge in the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent after it was amended ran as follows Reprehensible companyduct in wrongfully companyfining a K.D, Chandana Durgalu accused in Cr.
His plea was that when he proceeded on leave he entrusted charge of the police station to the head companystable leaving instructions to trace Durgalu and to take action.
On February 18, 1954, an offence of house breaking and theft was reported at the police station and was registered on February 19,1954.
The dead body of Reddy Simhachalam was found floating in a well near the police station on the morning of March 9, 1954, and an enquiry into the circumstances in which the death took place was companymenced by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam.
There is numberdispute that Durgalu was arrested on March 5, 1954, and was sent by the Village Munsif, Vechalam with his report to the police station Kodur.
The report then companycluded All these facts go to show that he was arrested on the 5th without a shadow of doubt, but if the judgment of the learned Court which is based on the retracted statement of Durgalu is companysidered the sacred truth the delinquent may have benefit of doubt.
No objection appears to have been raised before the Deputy Inspector General or even the Inspector General of police, that there was infirmity in the charge on that account, and that infirmity had prejudiced the respondent in the enquiry.
The respondent was at the material time in charge of the police station Kodur, Visakhapatnam District.
He returned to Kodur on March 12, 1954.
The charge and the statement of facts form part of a single document on the basis of which proceedings were started against the respondent and it would be hypercritical to proceed on the view that though the respondent was expressly told in the statement of facts which formed part of the charge sheet, that he had failed to record that Durgalu was handed over to him, that ground of reprehensible companyduct was number included in the charge, and on that account the enquiry was vitiated.
The charge against the respondent was that he had wrongfully companyfined Durgalu on March 5, 1954, to March 7, 1954, in the police station.
That Officer referred to the evidence of witnesses for the State about the arrest of Durgalu on March 5, 1954, and the handing over of Durgalu to the respondent on the same day.
whether Durgalu was arrested on March 5, 1954, and was delivered over by the village servants to the respondent at police station Kodur on the night of March 5, 1954.
304 2 and 201 read with s. 114 I.P. Code, for causing the death of Reddy Simhachalam by torturing him and for causing disappearence of the evidence of his death.
The case of the State was accepted by the Deputy Inspect.or .General of Police who passed the order of dismissal and the Inspector General of Police in appeal.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 18, 1959, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.
626 of 1961.
Police companystables Nos.
He observed that the evidence of Durgalu that after he was arrested on March 5 1954, he had made good his escape and was again arrested on March 8, 1954, companyld number be accepted.
In the memo of appeal to the Inspector General of Police, it was submitted by the respondent that the police witnesses were to be summoned by the Enquiry Officer, and that he did number summon them.
In our Judgment the proceedings before the departmental authorities were regular and were number vitiated on account of any breach of the rules of natural justice.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police held the departmental enquiry and submitted his report on October 27, 1954, setting out the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the State and the respondent, and summing up the companyclusion by reciting that the evidence in the case for the State made out a strong case against the respondent, that it was established that Durgalu was arrested on March 5, 1954, and was sent by the Village Munsif to Vechalam who in his turn sent him with the village servants to the police station Kodur, and Durgalu was handed over to the respondent on the night o.f March 5, 1954, that the story of Durgalu that after he was arrested on March 5, 1954, he escaped from the custody of the village servants and was again arrested on March 8, 1954, was false.
On March 7, 1954, the respondent entrusted charge of the police station to a head companystable and left for Kakinada on casual leave for five days.
The only question in dispute was whether Durgalu was handed over to the respondent on March 5, 1954, as stated by the witnesses for the State.
The respondent had also ample opportunity of examining his witnesses after he was informed of the charge against him.
The High Court quashed the two impugned orders.
In the enquiry, Durgalu made a statement that he had witnessed the torture of Reddy Simhachalam, in the police station, by the three companystables.
This Durgalu was apprehended by the Village Munsif of Kalogotla on March 5, 1954, and was handed over to the Village Munsif of Vechalam, who in his turn sent Durgalu to Kodur police station with village servants V. Polayya, Vechalapu Simhachalam, Kodamanchali Simhachalam and Koduru Sumudram.
The Sessions Judge held it proved on the evidence that Durgalu was arrested on March 5, 1954 and was taken to the police station Kodur and was wrongfully companyfined since that date in the police station, and the story of Durgalu before the Sub Magistrate that after he was arrested on March 5, 1954 and was taken to the Kodur village on that very day he had escaped from custody and that he remained in his village Vechalam companyld number be believed.
In the statement of facts which accompanied the charge sheet it was stated in express terms that the respondent had number recorded in any of the diaries of the police station that Durgalu was handed over to him on March 5, 1954.
The respondent had full numberice of the charge against him, and he examined witnesses in support of his defence and made several argumentative representations before the Deputy Inspector General, the Inspector General of Police and the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
The respondent submitted an explanation in which he submitted that Durgalu was number handed over to him on March S, 1954, as alleged number at any time before he proceeded on March 7, 1904, on casual leave.
It was recited in the report of the Village Munsif of Vechalam that one Durgalu who was then absconding was suspected to be the offender.
1199, 363 and 662 were then charged before the Sub Magistrate, Chodavaram, for offences under ss.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The respondent submitted his representation which was companysidered by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Range, Waltair.
A departmental enquiry was companymenced in May 1954 against the respondent.
After the departure of the respondent, some companystables arrested one Reddy Simhachalam and brought him to the police station in the evening of March 7, 1954.
The respondent then.
This, the statement of facts added, companystituted grave and reprehensible companyduct and hence the charge.
Against the order passed by the High Court, this appeal is preferred with special leave.
moved the High Court of Andhra pradesh by a petition under Art.
No.17/54 of Kodur Police Station from the night of 5 3 54 to 7 3 1954 in the Police Station when he went on five days casual leave.
On appeal to the Inspector General of Police, the order was altered into one of removal from service.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH J. On March 10, 1955, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, State of Andhra, passed an order dismissing the respondent who was a sub inspector of police appointed on probation from service.
1199, 363 and 662, Reddy Simhachalam became unconscious.
Bhimasankaram and T. Satyanarayana, for the respondent.
V.R. Tatachari and P.D. Menon, for the appellants.
922 of 1956.
April 10.
To the charge was appended a statement of facts reciting inter aria, that Durgalu was apprehended by the Village Munsif, Kaligotla and was handed over to the Village Munsif, Vechalam, that Durgalu was sent by the latter with the written report with the assistance of village servants, that on the same night the latter handed over Durgalu to the respondent in the police station Kodur at about 12 mid night, with the report of the Village Munsif and demanded acknowledgment but the acknowledgment was refused by the respondent, and that the respondent did number mention these facts in any of the station records and wrongfully companyfined Durgalu in the police station till March 7, 1954, when he proceeded on casual leave for five days.
