Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J.: This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment, dated January 20, 1966 of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland, in Civil Rule No. 184 of 1964 by which the High Court quashed the inquiry proceedings conducted by the 4th respondent herein and the order, dated December 3, 1958 passed by the 3rd respondent dismissing the first respondent (hereinafter shortly referred to as the respondent) from service and the orders of the appellate authorities confirming the same.

2. The respondent joined the Assam Police Service as a constable in 1933 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in 1936. He was then promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police in 1944. He was made permanent as Sub-Inspector of Police in 1952. In 1955, when the respondent was the Officer in charge of the Sorbhog Police Station, certain allegations appear to have been made against him in consequence of which a confidential enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Branch, who submitted a report to the Government on December 21, 1957. In view of the complaints received against him, the respondent had already been placed under suspension with effect from July 24, 1957.

3. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Barpeta, having been authorised under Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 framed charges against the respondent on March 22, 1958. It is not really necessary to enumerate the various items of charges, but they can be grouped under three broad heads. Under Charge No. 1, the respondent was alleged not to have taken cognisance of the items of cognizable offences reported to him and enumerated under that charge and, as such, he had neglected to perform his duty as a police-officer in charge of a Police Station. The second charge related to his having accumulated assets in his name as well as in the name of his wife, far beyond his known sources of income. Items of assets purchased by the respondent were again given in detail. The third charge related to the respondent having concealed the items, enumerated therein, and given false statements regarding his assets in the declaration of assets submitted to the authorities on July 22, 1957.

4. The respondent submitted his explanation controverting the allegations made against him. The enquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Barpeta (shortly referred to as the Enquiry Officer) and, as many as 14 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution. The respondent cross-examined those witnesses and he also examined four witnesses on his side.

5. The Enquiry Officer, by his report dated September 11, 1958 found the respondent guilty of the various charges, excepting regarding one item under the first charge. He declined to place any reliance on the evidence adduced by the respondent and rejected the explanation furnished by him. Ultimately, the Enquiry Officer, after finding the respondent guilty, submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup. The Superintendent of Police, after referring to the charges framed against the respondent, the nature of the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer as well as the finding recorded by the said Officer, issued a memo dated October 18, 1958 asking the respondent to submit his explanation. A copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer had already been given to the respondent. Still the Superintendent of Police also sent a copy along with his memo.

6. On receipt of this memo, the respondent requested the Superintendent of Police, by his letter dated October 29, 1958 for being furnished with copies of the depositions of the prosecution and defence witnesses recorded by the Enquiry Officer to enable him to submit his explanation. But this request was rejected by the Superintendent of Police stating that there was no rule for giving copies of statements.

7. The respondent submitted a fairly long explanation, dated November 21, 1958. He disputed the correctness of the findings r