The appellant was admitted to the police force companystituted under Act V of 1861.
The report of the Superintendent of Police was forwarded to the Government of U. P., and the Governor acting under r. 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings Administrative Tribunal Rules, 1947 herein after called the Tribunal Rules referred the case for enquiry to a Tribunal appointed under r. 3 of the Tribunal Rules on charges of companyruption, personal immorality and failure to discharge duties properly.
Pathak, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
Agarwala, G. C Mathur and C. P. Lal, for respondents Nos.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 22,1954, of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
The Tribunal framed three charges against the appellant, and after a detailed survey of the evidence recommended on February 4, 1950, that the appellant be dismissed from service.
In support the order dismissing the appellant from High Court dismissing his petition, the appellant has raised three companytentions 1that the order dismissing the appellant from the police force was unauthorised, because the Governor had numberpower under s. 7 of the Police Act and the regulations framed thereunder to pass that order 2that even if the Governor was invested with power to dismiss a police officer, out of two alternative modes of enquiry, a mode prejudicial to the appellant having been adopted the proceedings of the Tribunal which enquired into the charges against him were void, as the equal protection clause of the Con stitution was violated and 3that the proceedings of the Tribunal were vitiated because of patent irregularities which resulted in an erroneous decision as to the guilt of the appellant.
490 of 1957.
1 and 3.
He then directed that a formal enquiry be held against the appellant and passed orders reverting the appellant to his substantive rank of Inspector and placing him under suspension.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of S. K. Das, M. Hidayatullah, C. Shah and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ.
In a preliminary companyfidential enquiry, the Inspector General of Police came to the companyclusion that a prima facie case was made out against the appellant.
He was later promoted to the rank of Inspector, and in 1946 was transferred to the Anti companyruption department.
March 6.
The Governor then served a numberice requiring the appellant to show cause why he should number be dismissed from service and after companysidering the explanation submitted by the appellant, the Governor ordered that the appellant be dismissed with effect from December 5, 1950.
226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings of the Tribunal and for a writ of mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to hold an enquiry under s. 55 of the Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules.
In 1947, he was appointed, while retaining his substantive rank of Inspector, to the officiating rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
SHAH, J. In 1981, the appellant was admitted to the police force of the United Provinces and was appointed a Sub Inspector of Police.
The appellant challenged this order by a petition instituted in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Art.
Writ No.
An enquiry was held into the companyduct of the appellant by the Superintendent of Police, Anti companyruption department.
But these provisions did number apply to police officers for whom a special provision was enacted in s. 243.
7854 of 1951.
was delivered by C. Shah, J. K. C. Das Gupta, J. delivered a separate, Judgment.
Shortly thereafter, companyplaints were received by the Chief Minister and Inspector General of Police U. P. charging the appellant with immorality, companyruption and gross dereliction of duty.
Enquiry against the appellant, though companymenced before the Constitution was companycluded after the Constitution, and the order dismissing him from the police force was passed in December, 1950.
