As a fact all the witnesses were cross examined by the respondent in great detail.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 26, 1959, of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No.
125/ to Rs.B. Choudhri, for the respondent.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, R. Gopalakrishnan and P. D. Menon, for the appellants.
In accordance with this provision the Deputy Superintendent recalled the witnesses who had been examined by Mr. Majumdar during the preliminary investigation, brought on record the previous statements given by them, and after putting a few questions to, them tendered them for cross examination by the respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
400 of 1960.
May 3.
He should then give the defaulter an opportunity of cross examining each witness after his statement in support of the charge is companypleted, any such cross examination being recorded below the statement of the witness companycerned.
On that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Belgaum, started proceedings against the respondent, framed six charges against him, and called for his explanation.
41 of 1958.
On a companyplaint preferred by one Machwe of Kurdiwadi against him, Mr. Majumdar, Inspector C. I. D. made a preliminary investigation, examined a number of witnesses and recorded their statements, and submitted his report recommending further action.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J. This is an appeal by ,special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Mysore in a Writ Petition filed by respondent challenging the validity of an order of dismissal dated july 5, 1966 made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Belgaum.
The respondent entered service in the Police Department as a companystable in the District of Bharwar in 1940 and was at the material dates a sub inspector of Police.
