Judgement

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.

2. 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 continued to be in U. P. 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. He had also prayed for recovery of Rs. 7,453/- as full emoluments and salary from June 27, 1956 upto the date of the suit.

3. In order to appreciate the points raised before us it is necessary to set out the relevant facts. On December 13, 1942, the plaintiff was appointed as Platoon Commander in the Civil Guards. In 1945 there was a notification 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. On January 8, 1947, the result of the Civil Police Cadet for 1946 Session was announced, and in the extract of the Police Gazette it is stated in the last column under the heading where posted , against the name of the plaintiff, Azamgarh . This result sheet was issued by order of the Inspector-General-of-Police, United Provinces.

4. We have mentioned these facts because the learned Counsel for the plaintiff contends that the plaintiff was in fact appointed by the Inspector-General of Police and not by the Deputy Inspector General-of-Police.

5. Following three charges were framed against the plaintiff under Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861, on February 6, 1956:

"1. A case Cr. No. 92 under Sec. 324, I. P. C, was registered at P. S. Nariahun 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, I. P. C. and yet this S. I. did not investigate the case in accordance with law and failed even to comply with the orders of the Dy. S. P. (then acting as S. P.) given by him on 19-11-1955.

2. On 21-11-1955 a written report of burglary was made over to him by one Lalji Singh r/o Jamua who came to the Police Station along with Ramdeo and Ganesh but he failed to record that report and register a case in contravention of the provision of paragraph 97 of the Police Regulations. A case Cr. No. 101, under section 457/380, I. P. C, was, however, registered by him on 5-12-1955 although he had been to the scene of occurrence on 27-l1-55 and had conducted some investigation on that date. He did not 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.

3. A report of burglary on the night of 17/18-10-55 was handed over to this S. I. personally by complainant Raj Bahadur Singh but no action was taken on that report nor any entry was made in the General Diary to this effect. On receipt of a complaint 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. No. 100 under Section 457/380, I. P. C. on 2-12-55. Even after the Registration of this case this S. I. deferred proper investigation until 17-12-55."

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. He held the plaintiff guilty of the charges framed against him. Towards the end of