1861 on February, 6, 1956 A case Cr.
144 p.m. for a period of one year from 8 2 55 and reinstated in service.
1 1964 4 S.C.R. 540, 548.
Towards the end of the report, the Superintendent of Police observed I. Harish Chandra Singh is an enlistment of 29 1 47 when he seems to have started his service satisfactorily.
In respect of the various items of charge u s 7 of the Police Act framed against him he has been.
held guilty and companysidering the seriousness of these charges I do number think any leniency is called for in his favour.
The charges proved against him torn very serious and there is numberroom for me to show him any torn in the award of punishment.
The party is undisciplined and unreliable and he does number deserve torn in the police service.
Following three charges were framed against the plaintiff under s. 7 of the Police Act,.
He, was also reduced to lowest Scale of I.s,for a period of 3 years vide orders torn El dated 25 4 51.
The learned companynsel for the State,.
In 1955 he was dealt with u s 7 of the Police Act for having companytracted illicit companynection with Shrimati Mina Devi who was ultimately recovered from torn the C.I. and he was reduced for 2 years.
The Superintendent of Police gave a report on February 27, 1956, but the Inspector General ordered a fresh enquiry on March 6, 1956 On April 30, 1956, the Superintendent of Police gave his report.
A report of burglary on the night of 17/18 10 55 was handed over to this S.I. personally by companyplainant Raj Bahadur Singh but numberaction was taken on that report number any entry was made in the General Diary to this effect.
101 u s 457/380 PC was, however, registered by him on 5 12 55although he had been to the scene of occurrence on 27 11 55 and had companyducted some investigation on that date.
He did number prepare any case diary for the investigation carried out ,on 27 11 55 and even after the registration of the case on 5 12 55 he deferred proper investigation until 22 12 55.
This record of service does number appear encouraging at all.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 2, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
Even after the registration of this case this S.I. deferred proper investigation until 17 12 55.
162 p.m. to Rs.
He was, however, reduced to the lowest scale of a S.I. for a period of three years.
On subsequent companysideration he was reinstated and he reported for service in January 1952.
He had also prayed for recovery of Rs.
7,453 as full emoluments and s alary from June 27, 1956 up to the date of the suit.
A case Cr.
He torn entry in 1955 for having failed to torn of dacoity.
Agreeing with the proposal of the S.I., I order that S.I. Harish Chandra Singh be removed from service with effect from the date that this order is companymunicated to him.
In 1950 he was placed under suspension and he was dismissed from service from 21 6 51.
Subsequently he was awarded a misconduct entry for a number registration of dacoity case while posted in district Basti.
S.P. then acting as S.P. given by him on 19 11 55.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The plaintiff, Harish Chandra Singh, had brought a suit against the State of Uttar Pradesh and some Police Officers for a declaration that the order of removal of the plaintiff from the Police Service was void, illegal, ineffective and inoperative, and that the plaintiff still companytinued to be in Uttar Pradesh Police Service as Station Officer in Charge of a Police Station and that he was entitled to his full pay and emoluments with increments as they fell due.
C. Agrawala, S. R. Agrawala and P. C. Agrawala, for the, respondent.
In the alternative he companytends that if the record is taken into companysideration for the purpose of imposing a lesser punishment and number for the purpose of in creasing the quantum or nature of punishment, then it is number necessary that it should be stated in the show cause numberice that his past record would be taken into companysideration, It seems to us that the learned companynsel is right on both the points.
P. Agarwala and O. P. Rana, for the appellants.
The plaintiff then filed an appeal to the Inspector General Of Police, who rejected the appeal, and after.
This result sheet was issued by order of the Inspector General of Police, United Provinces.
100 u s. 457/380 I.P.C. on 2 12 55.
On December 13, 1942, the plaintiff was appointed as Platoon Commander in the Civil Guards.
In the show cause numberice it was stated that the plaintiff companyld send his written representation within 10 days of the receipt of the show cause numberice, and after checking his explanation he would be called to appear before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, E. Range.
On the other hand he has also earned some rewards and is at present posted as II Officer P.S. Mirganj.
He has clearly disobeyed the lawful orders of his superior officers and has failed to companyply with the mandatory provisions of law and Police Regulations.
On January 8, 1947, the result of the Civil Police Cadets for 1946 Session was announced, and in the extract of the Police Gazette it is stated in the last companyumn under the heading where posted, against the name of the plaintiff, Azamgarh.
In order to appreciate the points raised before us it is necessary to set out the relevant facts.
92 u s 324 IPC was registered at P. S. Mariahun which on receipt of the injury report on 6 11 55 at the P. S. was found to fall within the purview of section 326 IPC and yet this S.I. did number in vestigate the case in accordance with law and failed even ,,to companyply with the orders of the Dy.
On receipt of a companyplaint the C.I. was asked to enquire into the matter who directed him to register a case and accordingly a case was registered on Cr.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, appellants before us, against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Varanasi, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and decreeing the plaintiffs suit.
1271 of 1962.
In 1945 there was a numberification regarding the absorption of civil guards in the Police and on November 6, 1945, the plaintiff was selected by the Deputy Inspector General, Police Headquarters, Allahabad, for admission to the 1946 Session of the Police Training College, Moradabad.
834 of 1966.
On 21 11 55 a written report of burglary was made over to him by one Lalji Singh r o Jamua who came to the P.S. alongwith Ramdeo and Ganesh but he failed to record that report and register a case in companytravention of the provision of paragraph 97 of the Police Re gulations.
He was, however, later reinstated and joined his duty in January 1952.
On May 16, 1956, a show cause numberice was served on the plaintiff and a companyy of the findings of the Superintendent of Police was enclosed .
The Deputy Inspector General agreed with the findings of the Superintendent of Police, and at the end of his order he observed I. Sri Harish Chandra Singh was enlisted on 29 1 1947.
Soon after he was again placed under suspension with effect from 4 11 54 and was proceeded against u s 7 of the Police Act as a result of which he was reduced from Rs.
taking into companysideration his previous record companyfirmed the order of removal.
Against this black record, the torn 15 rewards and companymendations.
He held the plaintiff guilty of the charges framed against him.
His character roll indicates that he was again placed under suspension from 20 8 54 but reinstated on 30 9 54.
He appeared before the Deputy Inspector General of Police and answered various questions put by the T.G. Towards the end he stated that he had numbercomplaint with regard to the departmental proceedings against him.
In 1950 he was placed under suspension and was dismissed from service from 2.1 6 1951 while he was in district Azamgarh.
