TMI Blog1960 (11) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 951, 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 order of suspension was issued because complaints had been received against him and a departmental enquiry was proposed to be held in that behalf. Accordingly on May 21, 1951, a charge-sheet was framed against him and the same was delivered to him on June 13, 1951. This charge-sheet included eight charges. In the enquiry which followed six witnesses were examined before Mr. Shamaldas, Sub-Divisional Officer (Police). On November 7, 1951, the District Superintendent of Police, himself took up the enquiry under the orders of the Inspector-General of Police. He framed fresh charges because he thought that the charges previously framed were not clear. On this occasion five, charges were framed against the respondent; however, charges four and five out of these were dropped, and the enquiry was confined to only Act, and the Police Regulations. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hyderabad District Police Act. 3. If a member of the Indian Union Police Force was also subject to any other Act before he assumed or assumes duty in the Hyderabad State, he shall continue to be subject to that Act as if that Act had been extended mutatis mutandis to the Hyderabad State. 4. If any question of lay arises out of this Regulation, it shall be referred to the Military Governor whose opinion shall be conclusive. 5. The previous judgment in Jageram Malik's case shows that no provision had been brought to the notice of the Court whereunder the services of a Madhya Pradesh Police Officer could be loaned to a Part B State nor any which permit an enquiry to be made against such officer by an authority exercising jurisdiction in a Part B State ; that is why the learned judges held that the public officer in question, despite the temporary transfer of his services to the Hyderabad State must be deemed to be still on the Madhya Pradesh Police establishment. For the appellant, Mr. Khaskalam contends that if the relevant provisions of the Police Regulation had been cited before the Court on that occasion the Court might have come to a different conclusion. In this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , to supply him with certain documents. These documents were specified in five different paragraphs; amongst them were the file of Razakars in which there were recommendations of the District Superintendent of Police to the Civil Administrator, Adilabad, for the release of some Razakar detenus and for the orders of the Civil Administrator for the release of those detenus; copy of the application on the strength of which a preliminary enquiry was started; statements of Rajab Ali and Noor Bhai recorded by Mr. Ghatwal in his preliminary enquiry''. He had also asked for two other documents which were supplied to him, and so it is unnecessary to refer to them. Now in regard to the file of the Razakars, the officer made an endorsement that the file was searched in his office sometime back and was not found. He, however, directed that another search would be made and the report when received should be shown to the respondent. If the report was not 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. In regard to the copy of the application on which the enquiry commenced as well as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to recall the broad features of the evidence adduced against the respondent. In respect of each charge evidence Was given by the person who paid the money to Rajab Ali and Noor Bhai or one of them in order that it should be paid in turn to the respondent. Nooruddin S/o Saoji Veerani, Noor Mohd. S/o Hasham and Kasim Bhai are the three witnesses who gave evidence in support of the three charges respectively. The first witness said that he had given in all ₹ 12000 to Rajab Ali and Noor Bhai in three installments of ₹ 3,000, ₹ 3,000 and ₹ 6,000. Similarly the second witness said that he had paid ₹ 11,000 to Rajab Ali and Noor Bhai by two installments of ₹ 6,000 and ₹ 5,000 respectively, and the third witness stated that he was arrested after the police action, and he was told that if he paid the respondent ₹ 5,000 he would be released and so the money was paid. It is obvious that Rajab Ali and Noor Bhai are the principal witnesses against the respondent. It is equally clear from the findings recorded in the report itself that they collected far more than they are alleged to have paid to the respondent in two cases. In fact the report says ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file should be reported to have been lost. The respondent's case was that the Razakars in question fur whose release he is alleged to have accepted the bribe were released on the recommendation of the District Superintendent of Police and under the orders of the Civil Administrator of Adilabad. The file was therefore relevant and according to the respondent, the suggestion that the file had been lost was untrue and it was not produced because it was apprehended that, if produced, it would support his defence. It is true that the enquiry officer stated that he had made a search in his office but it could not be traced and that he was enquiring from the Collector and trying to find out whether the file could be found in the Collector's office. Apparently the respondent was given a letter addressed to the Collector wherein he was requested to show the file to the respondent if available. He was, however, told that the file was not traceable. It is in connection with the alleged loss of this file that the criticism made by Mr. justice Sen about the indecent haste made in the enquiry becomes relevant. If only more diligent efforts had been made to discover the file the enquiry o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case because, as we have already pointed out; the documents which the respondent wanted in the present case were relevant and would have been of invaluable assistance to him in making his defence and cross-examining the witnesses who gave evidence against him. It cannot be denied that when an order of dismissal passed against a public servant in challenged by him by a petition filed is the High Court under Art. 226 it is for the High Court to consider whether the constitutional requirements of Art. 311 (2) have been satisfied or not. In such a case it would be idle to contend that the infirmities on which the public officer relies flow from the exercise of discretion vested in the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer may have acted bona fide but that does not mean that the discretionary orders passed by him are final and conclusive. Whenever it is urged before the High Court that as a result such orders the public officer has been deprived of a reasonable opportunity it would be open to the High Court to examine the matter and decide whether the requirements of Art. 311 (2) have been satisfied or not. In such matters it is difficult and inexpedient to lay down any general rules; w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
