TMI Blog1974 (9) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough the pupils were dilated and he was smelling of alcohol, he was able to control himself, and was not under the influence of alcohol. The chemical analysis of the blood showed that the concentration of alcohol in his blood was 0. 49 per cent W/v. As the Officer-in-Charge of the investigation felt that this was below the percentage of 0.5 which required to raise a presumption for having drunk prohibited liquor so as to constitute an offence under S. 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, he made a report to the judicial Magistrate claiming C summary. That was granted. 3. However, the Superintendent of Police district Kolhapur, felt that a departmental enquiry was necessary for the alleged misconduct of the constable in consuming alcohol. He was of the view that the misconduct if proved, was of a nature where the constable was no fit to be retained in the Police force. He, therefore directed that a departmental enquiry be held. Accordingly a departmental enquiry was held which resulted in the dismissal of the constable. He, thereafter, served an appropriate notice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and filed the present suit. 4. Before the trial Judge, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether a delinquent is fit to be retained in public service, even though he has been acquitted by a criminal Court in respect of the charge framed against him, and the second important question raised related to the real departmental head so far as the police force is concerned. It is sought to be argued that the District Superintendent of police will be the appropriate officer, who has the power and the right to appoint a constable in service and therefore, to dismiss him and it is not necessary that the Inspector General of Police must apply his mind after an acquittal by criminal Court for deciding whether a departmental proceeding should be undertaken. In other words, so far as a person in the position of the plaintiff-respondent is concerned, a District Superintendent of Police should be treated as departmental head and not the Inspector General of police. 7. So far as the first point is concerned, the matter seems to be concluded by the earlier judgment of this Court. In Babarao Dagadu v. The State 1972 Mah. L.J. 604 by a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us was a party (Deshmukh, J.) a view has been taken that an acquit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent deserves to be retained as a member of the police force. It is not being doubted before us that the granting C summary was a judicial order and that the granting of that summary amounts to an acquittal of plaintiff-respondent in the present case. That aspect of the matter is also covered by the judgment of this Court and the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court have relied upon those authorities of this Court, so far as holding departmental proceedings are concerned. Therefore, it is clear that there is no automatic bar for holding departmental proceedings. 9. The second question appears to be some importance because the District Superintendent of police appears at first sight a high officer being the Head of police Organisation in the district. The District and Sessions Judge and the Collector who are in fact and in law the Heads of their respective departments. From this general knowledge an impression is gained at first sight that the District Superintendent of police would also be occupying the same position. However, the examination of the provision in that behalf would at once show that the approach in relation to the police department is slightly differe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of Police would be the Head of the Department. 12. The Bombay Police Act, 1951, which deals with the organisation of the Police force and its obligations and powers, deals with the hierarchy of the officers. In S. 6, sub-s. (1) it is stated that for the direction and supervision of the Police force, the State Government shall appoint an Inspector General of Police who shall exercise such powers and perform such functions and duties and shall have such responsibilities and such authority as may be provided by or under the said. Act. There is therefore, no doubt that the Inspector General of police is the highest officer in the police force and that office must be created by the State Government for the purpose of direction and supervision of the police force. Section 23 of this Act enables framing of Rules and Regulations for the various purposes, S. 23 vests the power of making Rules consistent with the Act in the Inspector General of Police but the exercise of that power is subject to the orders of the State Government. The Commissioner in the case of Police Officers allocated to the Greater Bombay has also some power, but the Inspector General of police has further power to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State of Maharashtra is concerned, the Inspector General of Police is the Head of the Department for the entire State and the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, is also Head of the Department in relation of the Police force stationed in greater Bombay. There does not seemed to be any other Officer who could be described as the Head of the Department so far as the Police force is concerned. 15. The plaintiff-respondent was initially tried before the trial Court in the sense C summary was obtained in his behalf form a Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As we have already pointed out, it is not being doubted that this amounts to an acquittal of the plaintiff-respondent by a criminal Court. We have also pointed out that even in the case of a person who is acquittal by the criminal Court, it is open to the State or the appropriate authority to hold a departmental enquiry. When, however, a departmental enquiry is to be decided after a judgment of acquittal by a criminal Court, the provisions contained in the Bombay Police Manual Volume I at para 445 lay down a specific procedure to be observed. In fact the relevant provision start form para 441. That paragraph deals with the holding of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing obtained, the officer incriminated shall be dealt with according to law. Sub-paragraph (2) thereof says that on the termination of the judicial proceedings, it will be the duty of the departmental head to consider the evidence and findings and determine whether the retention of the subordinate in service is desirable or not. This is a matter entirely for his consideration subject to an appeal to higher departmental authority. He is responsible for the retention or dismissal of his subordinates as may be expedient in the interests of the public service. In the case of an acquittal by a Court, while he must carefully consider the reasons, he is not justified in retaining the servant whom he believes on the evidence to be corrupt or otherwise so discredited as to be unfit for retention in the public service. 16. It is, therefore, clear that under these proceedings it is only a departmental head who has been entrusted with the responsibility to undertake the departmental proceedings if he comes to the conclusion after examining the whole record and findings of the criminal Court that is necessary to do so. It is the departmental head , as referred to in sub-para (2) of para 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
