The appellant was governed by the Police Act, 5 of 1861.
In July 1955, he received a numberice to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should number be taken against him in a matter relatng to certain cloth recovered at Katihar Police Station in a Police Case under ss.
The request for personal hearing was rejected.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 9, 1963 of the Patna High Court in M.J.C. No.
The appellant submitted his reply denying any misapropriation by him.
appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court.
In September 1957, the Inspector General served a second show cause numberice on the appellant to show cause why he should number be dismissed.
Aggrieved by the said order the appellant filed an appeal before the Government.
The appellant alleged that the enquiry was held at partially behind his back and was, therefore, bad.
The order was set aside on the ground that numberopportunity had been given to the appellant to explain the said adverse remarks, and that therefore, it was legally unsustainable.
That numberice was issued on, the strength of rr.
But on the basis of certain adverse remarks in the companyfidential character roll of the appellant, he passed an order reverting the appellant to his substantive rank of Sub Inspector of Police for a period of one year.
Nor was any opportunity to explain those remarks ever afforded to the appellant before the order of reversion was passed.
The Government thereupon served a numberice on the appellant to show cause why he should number be dismissed from service.
On June.
The appellant submitted his reply and also appeared in person.
About a year after the High Courts order quashing the Governments order of dismissal, the Government issued an order dated March 5, 1963 reinstating the appellant, but at the same time suspending him from service.
Admittedly, there was numbercharge against the appellant founded on the said adverse remarks.
15, 1963, the Government passed the order dismissing the appellant from service.
By his order dated September 30, 1958, the Inspector General exonerated the appellant from the said charges.
This was followd by an enquiry held by the Deputy Superintendent of Railway police at Samastipur.
This order clearly was one of penalty.
In June 1955, he worked in Saharsa District as an officiating Inspector of Police.
851 b and 853 A of the Bihar Orissa Manual, 1930.
CIBVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
23 of 1967.
The appellant thereupon gave his reply and requested for a personal hearing.
379 and 414 of the Penal Code.
On September 26, 1955, he was served with a charge sheet heet alleging misappropriation and companynivance by him of misappropriation by two companystables named therein .
These findings were than submitted to the Inspector General of Police with a recommendation that the appellant should be awarded exemplary punishment.
The question is whether it was companypetent for the Government, in an appeal filed by the appellant against the said order of reversion passed by the Inspector General Police, to set aside the findings of that officer by which he exonerated the appellant from the said charges against him, which findings were number appealed against by the department, and then pass an order of dismissal accepting the findings of the enquiry officer.
But the Govern , ment passed instead an order of dismissal disagreeing with the findings of the Inspector General and agreeing with the findings given by the enquiry officer, by whom the appellant had been found guilty.
In 1954, he was promoted to officiate as an Inspector of Police.
The adverse remarks on the basis of which the order of reversion was passed were, as the said order itself pointed out, never numberified to the appellant.
Hence, the appellant filed once more the present petition which the High Court dismissed in limine.
P. Jha, for respondents Nos.
1 and 2.
On November 7, 1959, the Government set aside the order of reversion passed by the Inspector General.
In April 1956, the Deputy Superintendent of Police submitted his findings to the Superintendent of Railway Police, Samastipur holding that the charges against the appellant had been established.
On a further appeal to the Governor having been dismissed by the Government, the.
On January 18, 1962, the High Court allowed the writ petition setting aside the Governments order of dismissal, but directed that the appellants appeal should go back to the Government for disposal according to law.,
That was the relief prayed for by the appellant in his said appeal.
After the requisite training in the Police Training College at Hazaribagh, he was posted as a Sub Inspector in 1950 in Champaran District.
N. Prasad and R. B. Datar, for the appellant.
The appellant was first appointed as a stenographer, Sub Inspector of Police in 1940 in the Police Service of the State.
824 of 1963.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J, This appeal, by special leave, is against the judgment of the High Court of Pitna dismissing in limine the writ petition Med by the appellant challenging the order of his dismissal from service passed by the Government of Bihar.
