According to the said decision the proper thing to do in holding an enquiry against a police officer deputed to Hyderabad was to retransfer him to Madhya Pradesh and then hold enquiry as required by the Madhya Pradesh Police Act and Regulations.
He urged that the said order was invalid as it was passed on the basis of an enquiry made by the police officers of the Hyderabad State who were number subordinate to the Inspector General of Police, Madhya Pradesh according to him it was essential that an enquiry should have been held against him under the Police Act and Regulations of Madhya Pradesh after the show cause numberice was served on him and since numbersuch enquiry was held the whole proceedings are void and the impugned order is ultra vires.
Sen and Bhutt, JJ.
On November 28, 1951, the District Superintendent of Police made his report in which he found that the respondent was guilty of all the three charges mentioned in the chargesheet, and he recommended that he should be dismissed from service.
On May 13, 1951, he was served with an order of suspension issued on May 3, 1951, by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Hyderabad Division.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur quashing the order of dismissal passed by the appellant, the State of Madhya Pradesh, against the respondent Waishampayan on June 14, 1952.
273 of Police Regulations of Madhya Pradesh, and the companytravention of the said Regulation made the order invalid.
It was on the strength of this decision that the respondent challenged the validity of the impugned order passed against him.
This petition was resisted by the appellant but by the majority decision of the Special Bench of the High Court which heard this petition the pleas raised by the respondent were upheld and the impugned order of dismissal has been set aside.
Thereafter a numberice to show cause was served on the respondent.
Thereafter on June 14, 1952, the Inspector General of Police passed an order dismissing the respondent from service which the respondent received on June 17, 1952.
In September 1948, he was sent on deputation to Hyderabad State where he served as a Sub Inspector of Police at Adilabad, Nirmal, Bhainsa and Nanded.
Meanwhile, on November 11, 1951, the respondent submitted an application to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, though the District Superintendent, repeating his request for the documents which he wanted to inspect before leading evidence in defence and giving his own statement that application was, however, rejected.
This order of suspension was issued because companyplaints had been received against him and a departmental enquiry was proposed to be held in that behalf.
The Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad, then forwarded the papers to the Inspector General of Police, Madhya Pradesh.
It is under these circumstances that the respondent filed his petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and challenged the validity of the order of dismissal on several grounds.
On January 8, 1952, a numberice was issued to the respondent by the Inspector General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, to show cause why he should number be dismissed.
In the case of Jageram Malik the Court ultimately held that the enquiry made by an officer exercising jurisdiction in Hyderabad State companyld number form the basis of any action on the part of the Inspector General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, and so the order of dismissal based on such an enquiry was set aside.
He was working at Adilabad from September 1948 till June 1950.
After evidence had been led against the respondent he was directed to produce his witnesses on November 13, 1951, and he was warned that if he did number lead evidence on that date the enquiry would be closed.
Accordingly on May 21, 1951, a chargesheet was framed against him and the same was delivered to him on June 13, 1951.
The respondent was appointed as a Sub Inspector of Police, by the Inspector General of Police, Central Provinces and Berar on January 1, 1943.
The enquiry then proceeded, witnesses were examined and the enquiry officer made the report that all the three charges had been proved against the respondent.
He framed fresh charges because he thought that the charges previously framed were number clear.
On November 9, 1951, the respondent requested by an application that certain documents may be supplied to him to enable him to make his defence.
His request was granted in respect of some documents but number with regard to all.
Lastly it was argued that the enquiry held by the Hyderabad authorities was companytrary to all principles of natural justice, and at the said enquiry the respondent had number been given a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges framed against him.
The respondent duly submitted his reply on February 10, 1952.
He recommended that the charges were serious and that the respondent should be dismissed forthwith.
The respondent gave his explanation, but the explanation was rejected and the impugned order of dismissal was passed against him.
Sen and Bhutt, JJ.
On this occasion five charges were framed against the respondent however, charges four and five out of these were dropped, and the enquiry was companyfined to only three.
On November 7, 1951, the District Superintendent of Police himself took up the enquiry under the orders of the Inspector General of Police.
On this question there was a difference of opinion among the judges who companystituted the Special Bench which heard the respondents petition.
Witnesses were examined during the companyrse of this enquiry and were cross examined by the respondent.
The appellant applied for a certificate but its application was rejected by the High Court and so it moved this Court and obtained special leave that is how this appeal has companye to this Court at the instance of the appellant.
On receipt of this report, the Deputy Inspector General of Police made his own endorsement on it and supported the recommendation for the dismissal of the respondent.
The argument was that the Firman issued by the Nizam on August 7, 1949, companyferred appropriate powers on the Military Governor, and by virtue of these powers the Military Governor had issued the said Police Force Regulation.
Subsequently in January 1945, he was companyfirmed in that post.
In the enquiry which followed six witnesses were examined before Mr Shamaldas, Sub Divisional Officer Police .
The respondent then preferred an appeal against the said order but his appeal failed and was dismissed.
This chargesheet included eight charges.
Broadly stated the respondent challenged the validity of the impugned order on three grounds.
Mr Justice Sen, who was a party to the decision in Jageram Malik case was inclined to uphold the respondents companytention, whereas Rao, J. rejected the said companytention and Bhutt, J. was presumably inclined to agree with Rao, J. Similarly there was a difference of opinion among the judges on the question as to whether a breach of Police Rules and Regulations was justiciable.
He also urged that the said order was number in accordance with Regulation No.
On the first point the appellant companytended that the previous decision of the High Court in Jageram Malik case should be reconsidered, and it was pointed out that on the earlier occasion the attention of the learned judges was number drawn to the Union Police Force Regulation 1358F No.
held that the enquiry in question was companytrary to the principles of natural justice while Rao, J. took a companytrary view.
If the report was number forthcoming, the enquiry officer promised to write to the Collector and request him to show the papers to the respondent if they were in his office.
It appears that a previous decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in Jageram Malik v. State ILR 1955 Nag 93 has held that a police officer deputed on duty at Hyderabad was governed by the Police Act, the Police Regulations and the General Book Circulars prevailing in Nagpur, and that an enquiry must be held by an officer exercising jurisdiction under the said Police Act and the Police Regulations.
In regard to the companyy of the application on which the enquiry companymenced as well as the statements of Rajab Ali and Noor Bhai the order was that the said documents were secret papers and were number admissible for the purpose of the enquiry.
On November 11, 1951, the respondent repeated his request for the supply of the said documents but this request was rejected.
were inclined to uphold the respondents plea, whereas Rao, J. rejected it.
25 of 1358F which had been promulgated by the Military Governor.
On the question as to whether the enquiry actually held by the appellant in Hyderabad suffered from the infirmities alleged by the respondent the learned judges were similarly divided.
