TMI Blog1963 (4) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d orders. Against the order passed by the High Court, this appeal is preferred with special leave. It is necessary to set out in some detail the facts which gave rise to the departmental proceedings against the respondent resulting in his removal from service. The respondent was at the material time in charge of the police station Kodur, Visakhapatnam District. On February 18, 1954, an offence of house-breaking and theft was reported at the police station and was registered on February 19,1954. It was recited in the report of the Village Munsif of Vechalam that one Durgalu who was then absconding was suspected to be-the offender. This Durgalu was apprehended by the Village Munsif of Kalogotla on March 5, 1954, and was handed over to the Village Munsif of Vechalam, who in his turn sent Durgalu to Kodur police station with village servants V. Polayya, Vechalapu Simhachalam, Kodamanchali Simhachalam and Koduru Sumudram. It is the case of the State that Durgalu was handed over to the respondent on the night of March 5, 1954, but no written acknowledgment in token of having received Durgalu from the village servants was given by the respondent, nor was any entry posted in the station ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge on that very day he had escaped from custody and that he remained in his village Vechalam could not be believed. A departmental enquiry was commenced in May 1954: against the respondent. The charge in the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent after it was amended ran as follows :-- Reprehensible conduct in wrongfully confining a K.D, Chandana Durgalu accused in Cr.No.17/54: of Kodur Police Station from the night of 5-3-54: to 7-3-1954: in the Police Station when he went on five days casual leave.' ' To the charge was appended a statement of facts reciting inter aria, that Durgalu was apprehended by the Village Munsif, Kaligotla and was handed over to the Village Munsif, Vechalam, that Durgalu was sent by the latter with the written report with the assistance of village servants, that on the same night the latter handed over Durgalu to the respondent in the police station Kodur at about 12 mid- night, with the report of the Village Munsif and demanded acknowledgment but the acknowledgment was refused by the respondent, and that the respondent did not mention these facts in any of the station records and wrongfully confined Durgalu in the police stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as arrested on March 5: 1954, he had made good his escape and was again arrested on March 8, 1954, could not be accepted. Holding that the charge against the respondent was serious and had on the evidence been adequately proved, in his view the only punishment which the respondent deserved was of dismissal from the police force.- In appeal the Inspector General of Police accepted the evidence of the witnesses who had deposed that they had handed over Durgalu to the respondent on March 5, 1954. In his view the respondent had betrayed gross dishonesty and lack of character in falsifying the records by omitting to write what he had done and what happened in the police station, thereby .proving himself thoroughly dishonest and untrustworthy, and showing himself unfit to hold the responsible post of a SubInspector of police, and that his records as a probationary Sub-Inspector of police are generally unsatisfactory. and he has earned a reputation for inefficiency and lack of interest in work for weakness in dealing with his subordinates, which are all attributes that militate against his becoming useful SubInspector of Police. But taking into consideration his young age and ine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iple of jurisprudence is discarded in reaching such findings , and since the fundamental rule that a person should be punished only after the entire evidence in the case had been considered and he is found liable beyond reasonable doubt, had not been followed, the conclusions of the departmental authorities were vitiated. The High Court again observed that the orders passed by the departmental authorities were vitiated because of two other matters: (i) that the Enquiry Officer declined to summon and examine two witnesses for the defence even though a request in that behalf was made; and (ii) that there was no charge against the respondent of falsifying the record by omitting to write what he had done or what happened in the police station , and he had not been given an opportunity of meeting such a charge and therefore the respondent had no fair hearing consistent with the principles of natural justice. There is no warrant for the view expressed by the High Court that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of the misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ast any doubt upon the conclusion recorded by him. The Enquiry Officer appears to have stated that the judgment of the Magistrate holding a criminal trial against a public servant could not always be regarded as binding in a departmental enquiry against that public servant. in so stating, the Enquiry Officer did not commit any error. The first ground on which the High Court interfered with the order of the punishing authorities is therefore wholly unsustainable. The two other grounds on which the High Court also based its conclusion, namely, refusal to summon and examine witnesses for the respondent and holding the respondent guilty of a charge of which he had no notice are equally without substance. It appears that the respondent desired to examine police constables Nos. 178, 506 and 569 to prove that Durgalu was not in the lock-up till March 8, 1954. Police constable No. 506 was examined as a witness for the respondent, and the Enquiry Officer has not accepted his evidence. The other two witnesses were neither summoned nor examined, but it appears from the record that on September 20, 1954, the respondent promised to produce the witnesses whom he had cited in his defence. At t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statement of facts which formed part of the charge-sheet, that he had failed to record that Durgalu was handed over to him, that ground of reprehensible conduct' was not included in the charge, and on that account the enquiry was vitiated. No objection appears to have been raised before the Deputy Inspector General or even the Inspector General of police, that there was infirmity in the charge on that account, and that infirmity had prejudiced the respondent in the enquiry. The respondent had full notice of the charge against him, and he examined witnesses in support of his defence and made several argumentative representations before the Deputy Inspector General, the Inspector General of Police and the Government of Andhra Pradesh. In our Judgment the proceedings before the departmental authorities were regular and were not vitiated on account of any breach of the rules of natural justice. The conclusions of the departmental officers were fully borne out by the evidence before them and the High Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the order either on the ground that the approach to the evidence was not consistent with the approach in a criminal case, nor on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
