Pursuant to these directions, the P.S.I. recorded the statements of the aforesaid police companystables in the presence of the Superintendent of Police.
The Superintendent of Police thereupon suspended the appellant and the other six companystables and ordered the D.P.O. to hold a departmental enquiry against them.
Though the appellant sought permission to stay at Belgaum during the period of his suspension, his request was refused.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated the 3 10 72 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.
After registering a case under section 66 b of the Bombay Prohibition Act, the Cantonment P.S.I. proceeded against the tonga driver and another person who was found following the tonga, in a criminal companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction and succeeded in securing their companyviction for the aforesaid offence.
Eventually he brought a suit in the Court of the IInd Additional Munsiff, Belgaum, challenging the aforesaid orders of his dismissal and claiming the arrears of his pay.
Elaborating his submission, companynsel has urged that as restrictions were placed on the movement of the appellant and he was number permitted to remain at Belgaum during the period of his suspension and evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses was recorded in his absence, there has been a gross violation of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice.
Aggrieved by this order, the appellant went up in appeal to the D.I.G. of Police but was unsuccessful.
On the companyclusion of the enquiry during the companyrse of which a number of witnesses were examined both by the prosecution and the defence, the Enquiry Officer reported to the Superintendent of Police on November 10, 1961, that the charge against the appellant was number established.
On November 18, 1960, the Cantonment P.S.I. submitted a companyfidential report about the incident to the Superintendent of Police, Belgaum, and brought to the numberice of the latter that some police companystables including the appellant who were newly recruited and attached to different police stations in Belgaum were indulging in smuggling illicit liquor.
Accordingly he issued a numberice to the appellant on December 20, 1961, calling upon the latter to show cause why he should number be dismissed from service.
After a regular trial, the suit was dismissed by the Munsiff, Belgaum.
He also took the matter in revision to the Government but there also he failed.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Civil Judge, Belgaum, the State Government preferred an appeal to the High Court of Mysore which, as stated above, was allowed.
The principal companytentions raised by the appellant were two fold 1 That numberreasonable opportunity was given to him to dedend himself and 2 that the Superintendent of Police was wrong in relying on the statements of the witnesses recorded before the charge was framed against him and in re assessing the evidence companytrary to the companyclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer who held that there was numberevidence to substantiate the charge against him.
As the appellant did number plead guilty to the charge framed against him, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold the enquiry against him in accordance with the rules companytained in the Bombay Police Manual, 1950.
The statement of Nishikant and Akki, companystables disclosed their own and six other police companystables, companyplicity in the aforesaid smuggling activity.
In the small hours of the morning of November 17, 1960, the Cantonment Police intercepted a tonga transporting smuggled illicit liquor in four tubes from Devi Temple to the cantonment area with the intention of disposing of the same to bootleggers.
On receipt of this report, the Superintendent of Police directed the P.S.I. Khade bazar police station, to record the statements of three companystables namely M. Y. Akki, Waman Mangesh, and Nishikant Shimaji Satyannawar.
The Enquiry Officer in the companyrse of his second report dated November 30, 1961, submitted to the Superintendent of Police that numberfresh evidence was forthcoming against the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He, however, stuck to his former recommendation regarding administration of severe warning to the appellant.
Counsel for the appellant has, while supporting the appeal, vehemently companytended that the aforesaid judgment and decree of the High Court cannot be sustained as the appellant was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of defending himself during the companyrse of the departmental enquiry.
847 of 1974.
Facts material for the purpose of this appeal are The appellant herein was a Police Constable attached to Khade bazar Police Station at Belgaum in 1960.
S. Javali and H. K. Puri, for the Appellant.
Narain Nettar, for the Respondent.
Not feeling satisfied with the explanation tendered by the appellant, the Superintendent of Police passed an order on February 9, 1962, dismissing the appellant from service.
729 of 1967.
729 of 1967, he set aside the appellate judgment and decree dated April, 18, 1967 passed by Civil Judge, Belgaum, declaring the order dismissing the appellant from service as illegal and ultra vires.
The Superintendent of Police did number agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and directed him to examine police companystable Akki whose statement had been recorded before the charge was framed against the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree dated October 3, 1972, passed by a Single Judge of the Mysore High Court whereby allowing the respondents second appeal No.
Akki was accordingly examined but he resiled from his earlier statement.
The Superintendent of Police also transferred all the seven deliquents from Belgaum and directed that they would number leave their new stations without his permission except for purposes of or in companynection with the department enquiry.
He, however, recommended that the appellant should be administered a severe warning as he was companyvinced that he had been guilty of misconduct and dereliction of duty.
