He retired from service in that month but was re employed from the date of retirement as a Deputy Superintendent of Police Enforcement Department .
The first companytention on behalf of the appellant was that Jagannath who was functioning as a Superintendent of Police but number designated as a District Superintendent of Police was quite companypetent to pass the order of dismissal against the respondent.
The enquiry against the respondent had taken place after the retirement of the said Diwanchand but during the period of his reemployment.
D 4, the order of the Inspector General of Police, Delhi dated June 6, 1949 shows that Diwanchand Bhatia was posted to city vice Malik Bodh Raj, Deputy Supe rintendent of Police, who will take over charge as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Enforcement.
According to him, the District Magistrate was in charge of the entire Delhi area including New Delhi, Old Delhi and rural areas.
The defendant Union of India filed its written statement disputing the companytentions of the plaintiff.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 11, 1963 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No.
ment shall companysider necessary.
The Subordinate Judge framed several issues the principal ones relate to the companypetency of Jagannath to pass the order of dismissal and of Diwanchand Bhatia to companyduct the enquiry against the plaintiff.
Finding in favour of the plaintiff on both the issues, he decreed the suit.
This decree was upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Delhi and in Second Appeal by a single Judge of the Punjab High Court who modified the decree by an alteration in the figure of the salary claimed by the plaintiff but upholding his claim on the main issues.
Further, the police officer in charge of the entire area was the Inspector General of Police and there were two Superintendents of Police, one for Delhi City and the other for New Delhi.
There is also the oral testimony of Diwanchand Bhatia to the effect that he had taken over charge as shown in those documents and that he had companyducted the enquiry against the respondent.
The appellant filed a suit challenging his dismissal on the grounds already mentioned in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge Delhi on January 12, 1954.
The questions canvassed in this appeal were whether the dismissal of the respondent from service in the police force was illegal on the ground that the officer entrusted with the departmental enquiry against the respondent was number a police officer secondly, whether the order of dismissal passed by Shri Jagannath was invalid because he was number a District Superinendent of Police and thirdly, whether the dismissal was void on account of numbercompliance with the provisions of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules.
Under s. 4 of the Police Act V of 1861, an Act for the regulation of Police, The administration of the police throughout a general police district shall be vested in an officer to be styled the Inspector General of Police, and in such Deputy Inspectors General and Assistant InspectorsGeneral as to the State Government shall deem fit.
36 D of 1963.
1111 of 1965.
The administration of the police throughout the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate of the district shall, under the general companytrol and direction of such Magistrate, be vested in a District Superintendent and such Assistant District Superintendent as the State Govern.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Shri Jagannath was the Superintendent of Police, City and all the police stations of the city were under his charge.
Sen and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
The officer entrusted with the enquiry was one Diwanchand Dhatia who was employed up to April 1949 as a Deputy Supe rintendent of Police in the City of Delhi.
He said that he was posted as Superintendent of Police at the headquarters at Delhi in 1950.
The respondent had been appointed a Sub Inspector of Police by the Inspector General of Police in Sind before the partition of India and was thereafter posted in Delhi by the Deputy Inspector General of Police Delhi after his migration to India.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judg ment and order dated April 11, 1963 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in a Letters Patent Appeal which summarily dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant from a judgment and order in a Second Appeal upholding the decree in favour of the respondent passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi.
The respondent was found guilty of the charge and was dismissed from service by the order dated December 8, 1949 , passed by one Jagannath, a Superintendent of Police in the Delhi Police Force.
The Letters Patent Appeal, as already stated, was dismissed summarily.
In order to appreciate the points raised, it is necessary to state the following relevant facts.
Frank Anthony, D. R. Sehgal and D. D. Sharma, for the respondent.
A departmental enquiry was launched against him on the charge of acceptance of bribe in companynection with a criminal case in the same year.
In the year 1949 he was posted as Sub Inspector of Police in Police Station Daryaganj, Delhi.
D 5 is a certificate to the effect that Diwanchand Bhatia had on the forenoon of 28th April 1949 received charge of the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Enforcement, Delhi with the designation Officiating Deputy Superintendent of Police.
