Consequently, he organised a raiding party.
The charge reads as under That you on 22 6 57 at 8.30 a.m. were sent for checking cycle thieves vide D. D. No.
D.W. 2, Raghu Nath, admitted that on 22nd June 1957 a case under s. 324 I. P. C. was registered at the instance of Harijans and that investigation was made Hori Lal and then S. I. Daulat Ram.
Appeal by special leave from judgment and order dated March 4, 1964 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench, Delhi in R.S.A. No.
Jagadish Swarup, Solkitor General, and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
and a scuffle took, place between the plaintiff and his other associates on the one hand and Mohan Lal and others on the other hand.
On 22nd June, 1957 he was on duty for prevention of crime and while on his round he received information that some gamblers were gambling in a public place on Rouse Avenue.
The Sub Judge dismissed the suit.
He also passed a decree for Rs.
The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, who accepted the appeal and granted the plaintiff a decree, for a declaration that the order dated 3rd September, 1957 dismissing him from service is illegal and ultra vires.
1, therefore, charge you for gross negligence of duty.
D. Bali and D. D. Sharma, for the respondent.
The Government filed an appeal in the High Court.
750 of 1966.
Batto mother of Mohan Lal were injured.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
9 dated 22 6 57 P. S. Faiz Bazar, but left your place of duty and alongwith F. C. Thakur Dayal No.
First it was alleged that Shri.
D. C. Sharma was number a District Superintendent of Police and, therefore number entitled to dismiss the plaintiff.,
The version of the plaintiff as to what happened on 22nd June, 1957 was this.
The version of the Government was that the plantiff was deputed for the checking of cycle theft duty near Employment Exchange, Darya Gunj and he had number been posted at Rouse Avenue, Harding Bridge.
It was denied that the plaintiff received any information regarding gambling at a public place.
1926 /10 on account of pay and allowances.
The main attack was twofold.
6105 went to Asaf Ali Road from where you took F. Cs.
Secondly it was alleged that as the procedure prescribed by Rule 16.38 of the, Punjab Police Rules was number followed, the departmental action taken against the plaintiff was illegal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, C.J. The respondent, Ram Kishan, Head Constable, hereinafter referred to as the Plantiff failed a suit challenging the order of dismissal passed against him on 3rd September, 1957 by Shri D. C. Sharma, Superintendent of Police Central .
That numberindependent witness or informer were produced by you before the investigation officer to show whether or number your raid was of bona fide nature.
256 D of 1962.
in Rouse Avenue.
On the companytrary it was alleged on behalf of the Government that the plantiff alongwith other companystables wanted to implicate Mohan Lal, Nathu etc.,
Fearing that they would be hauled up, they approached a Harijan member of the Corporation as well as a Harijan Member of the Parliament, who telephoned to the plaintiffs officers, at the police station, before the plaintiff reached the police station from the scene of affray in order to lodge his report.
The gamblers, who were Harijans, out numbered the police party and inflicted some injuries on the members of the party.
