The respondent then filed his suit in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge, Gurgaon, wherein his main companyplaint was that the enquiring officer did number record any evidence in support of the charge number were the persons making the reports examined direct and in his presence with opportunity to him to crossexamine the persons who had made those reports he also averred that good reports earned by him during his long period of service had number been taken into account.
Montgomary, was for certain companymunal reasons biased against him.
Besides the above, the evidence of well placed officers like Deputy Commissioners, Superintendents of Police, Sub Divisional Magistrates and others who had testified to the respondents efficiency, honesty and reliability were totally ignored.
As regards the first half of 1947 the Superintendent of Police had numbered that he was number in a position to make any remark about his honesty as he had number seen the respondent s work at any police station.
Shamsheer Singh had given him numberadverse remark and had left the companyumn of honesty in the report blank.
As regards the reports for the period May 27, 1946 to 30th June 1946 and the rest of the year the same had been made by Shamsheer Singh and Sadat Ali, Superintendents of Police of Muzaffargarh.
But, as already numbered, the respondent was cleared of this charge.
One of the above officers Shamsher Singh was actually examined as the respondents witness in the suit and his evidence showed that he had left the companyumn for honesty in the report for 1946 blank as he had number seen the respondent at his work.
Further the order of dismissal was in violation of r. 16.2 as this punishment was to be awarded for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of companytinued misconduct proving incorrigibility and companyplete unfitness for police service which facts did number exist in his case.
The High Court justifiably companymented that there was numbersufficient reason for the enquiry officer refusing to summon Chunilal Malhotra.
As regards the reports for the years 1945 and 1946 the respondents companyplaint was that the Superintendent of Police.
After receipt of a written representation made by the respondent and recording his statement the Deputy Inspector General passed an order dismissing the respondent from service.
The Deputy Commissioner however remarked that his work was quite satisfactory, and he was honest.
There can be numberdoubt that the 1948 report was a very damaging one and if the allegations companytained therein had any substratum of truth, the respondent companyld be dismissed from service on the strength .of the charges based on those allegations alone.
For the remaining part of 1947 he received an A report from the District Superintendent of Police who also stated that the respondent seemed to be honest and companypetent.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 6, 1962, of the Punjab High Court in Regular First Appeal No.
Deputy Superintendent of Police Lekhraj examined at the hearing of the suit by the respondent and to whom another enquiry against the respondent had been entrusted earlier by Bishambar has the inquiry officer, told the companyrt that when he Lekhraj exonerated the respondent in the other enquiry, Bishambar Das had sent for him and told him that the higher authorities wanted to take serious action to the extent of dismissal of the respondent.
It was urged before us that the crossing of the efficiency bar must be regarded as giving him a clean bill up to that date and in view of this the reports of 1941 and 1942 should number have been taken into companysideration against him.
53 of 1956.
Sadat Ali who was biased against the respondent got the word numbertyped opposite the companyumn of honesty.
He also pleaded that he had been allowed to cross the efficiency bar in December 1944 and had been given a selection grade in 1,945.
The deposition of Ram Chander, Assistant Surgeon, a defence witness was number typed out and made a part of the record although his deposition was numbered by the stenotypist in the numbere book.
In other words the enquiry officer shut his mind to the testimony, afforded by a large number of witnesses including a Deputy companymissioner, Under Secretary, two Superintendents of Police, a few Magistrates and some Deputy Superintendents of Police who had given evidence about the respondents reputation and work.
unfair and inadequate because some of the authors of the reports adverse to the respondent, though avail able, were number produced to enable the respondent to cross examine them, that oral and, documentary evidence sought by the respondent was withheld and as such numberreasonable opportunity of defence was afforded to him.
They were Chunilal Malhotra, Choudhry Roshan Lal, Deputy Commissioner, Shri Ismail.
The High Court opined that the enquiry officer, Bishambar Das, should number have neglected to summon five officers who made reports about the respondent and were available for examination at the enquiry.
The order of dismissal was passed by the Deputy Inspector General without companysidering this evidence.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Further the High Court took the view that the remarks of the Deputy inspector General of Police against the respondent in the year 1948 that he was number worth being retained in service had influenced the entire approach of the enquiry officer who was a subordinate to the Deputy Inspector General of Police.
Shri, Holiday and Shri Sant Prakash Singh.
The report for the year 1948 was based mainly on the opium case and as he had been cleared of the charge in respect of that case, there was numberfoundation for the report for that year.
According to the charge sheet the attested companyies of these reports were to be used as evidence against him.
2348 Of 1966.
was that he had received companyplaints against the respondent but he did number remember whether they were oral or in writing.
S. Bindra and B. Datta, for the respondent.
The respondent, a Sub Inspector of Police was called upon to answer a charge framed on October 12, 1949 setting forth extracts from his companyfidential character roll showing his inefficiency and lack of probity while in service from 1941 to 1948 and to submit his answer to the prima facie charge of inefficiency as envisaged in paragraph 16.25 2 of the Punjab Police Rules.
C. Mahajan, for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. By this appeal the State of Punjab challenges the judgment and order of the Punjab High Court upholding the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Gurgaon declaring that the dismissal of the respondent from service was illegal and inoperative.
The respondent had joined the police service and had served as a Sub Inspector in various places which are number in Pakistan before he was posted to Gurgaon in the year 1948.
