He was dismissed along with four other members of the Force posted at Aurangabad.
In pursuance of this power Parliament has enacted the Police Forces Restriction of Rights Act, 1966 Act No.33 of 1966 .
Article 33 of the Constitution empowers Parliament by law to determine to what extent any of the rights companyferred by Part III of the Constitution that is, the Fundamental Rights , shall in their application inter alia to the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them.
He had also filed a writ petition before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court which was dismissed and he too has approached this Court in appeal by way of Special Leave granted by this Court.
The order of dismissal in his case sets out in detail the acts of misconduct alleged against him, the situation which was prevailing in Aurangabad and the reasons why it was number reasonably practicable to hold a disciplinary inquiry against him.
As shown by the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the long title of the Act, the object of the Act is to provide for the restriction of certain Fundamental Rights in their application to the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and maintenance of discipline among them.
Briefly summarized, when the violence broke out in Bombay on August 18, 1982, a similar situation was attempted to be brought about in Aurangabad by Velankar and the four others who were dismissed along with him.
He too was governed by the Bombay Police Act.
It was brought into force in the State of Maharashtra with effect from July 15, 1979, by Notification No.
From the Judgement and Order dated 1.12.1982 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No.
501 A of 1982.
Under section 1 3 , the said Act is to companye into force on such date as may be appointed in this behalf by numberification in the Official Gazette, in a Union Territory, by the Central Government and in a State, by the Government of that State.
Velankar is said to have led a procession on August 21, 1982, which procession shouted provocative slogans, demanding the release of these policemen in Bombay who had been arrested and demanding their reinstatement and revocation of orders of suspension passed against others in Bombay.
Section 25 of the Bombay Police Act specifies the officers who are entitled to punish the members of the Bombay Police Force.
N. Ganpule for the Appellant in C.A. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
4363 of 1985.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MADON, J. The Appellant in Civil Appeal No.
He was also dismissed in the same way as Sawant by an order dated August 22, 1982, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad, under section 25 2 of the Bombay Police Act read with clause b of the second proviso to Article 311 2 of the Constitution.
M. Tarkunde, V.N. Ganpule for the Appellant in C.A. No.
4041 of 1982, Shivaji Atmaji Sawant, was a Police Constable in the Bombay City Police Force attached to the Bandra Police Station in Bombay.
4041 of 1982.
0229 PLO III dated July 10, 1979, published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated July 26, 1979, Part IVA at page 502.
The said order of dismissal was passed under section 25 1 of the Bombay Police Act read with clause b of the second proviso to Acticle 311 2 of the Constitution of India.
4041 of 1982.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.1982 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.
B. Bhasme, M.N. Shroff and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents.
By an order dated August 22, 1982, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, he was dismissed from service, without a charge sheet having been issued to him and without any inquiry being held with respect to the misconduct alleged against him.
He was governed by the Bombay Police Act, 1951 Bombay Act No.
The writ petition filed by Sawant challenging the said order of dismissal was dismissed by the Bombay High Court.
4363 of 1985.
1976 of 1982.
He has thereupon approached this Court in appeal by way of Special Leave granted by this Court.
AND Civil Appeal No.
XXII of 1951 .
The Appellant in Civil Appeal No.4363 of 1985, Namdeo Jairam Velankar, was a Head Constable in Armed Batch No.645 and was posted at Aurangabad.
The companyclusions reached by this Court in Tulsiram Patels Case have been summarized in Satyavir Singh and others etc.
