SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(Bom) 67

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
K.K. Desai and D.G.Palekar, JJ
Appellants: State of Bombay
Vs.
Respondent: Ganpat Dhondiba Sawant
Cross First Appeal Nos. 229 and 244 of 1959 Decided On: 22.04.1965
Counsels:
K.J. Abhyankar, Asst. Govt. Pleader and S.J. Sorabji and S.C. Pratap, Advs.

JUDGMENT - K.K. Desai, J.

(1) These are two cross appeals by the plaintiff and the defendants against the judgment of and decree dated November 28, 1958, passed by the joint Civil Judge, Senior Division , Poona in special Civil suit NO. 7 of 1957, dismissing the plaintiff suit except in connection with the claim for money amounting to Rs. 1, 701 - 5-0 and proportionate costs and interest at 4 per cent. Per annum on the above amount from January 29, 1951, till relation. The learned judge of directed the plaintiff to pay to the defendants the costs of the suit proportionate to the claim rejected.

[2] The plaintiff suit was mainly for a declaration that the order of dismissal of the plaintiff dated January 11, 1954, passed by the defendants [the state of Bombay] was wrongful and illegal and inoperative and on the footing claiming right of continuances in service continuously inspite of the above order of dismissal and for money decree amounting to Rs. 15,250 for arrears of salary and also for future of pay and salary.

[3] The main facts leading to the above order of dismissal dated January 11, 1954 are as follows:-

[4] The plaintiff jointed service in police force of the province of Bombay on June 11, 1929. In September 1949, the plaintiff was attached to the cantonment police station, Poona as sub - Inspector of Police. His salary then was Rs. 234-2-0- inclusive of allowances in the grade of Rs. 120-5-195. It appears that on September 6, 1949, at or about 8/8-20 p.m., one unknown stranger was found lying the passage in the compound of petit Hall at Bhavani Peth, Poona city. Information about his fact was conveyed to a constable about this face was age with the limits of the Cantonment police station. The constable went to the police station and reported the matter orally to Head constable kate. The police thereafter saw the stranger in the compound of the petit Hall and removed him to the cantonments police station. On the next day i.e., September 7, 1949 in the morning the stranger was found near Empress Garden within the jurisdiction of under another police station in unconscious condition. He was from to Sassoon Hospital, where he was admitted as an in - patient at 8.25 a.m. he died at about 8-40 a.m. On post - modern, he it was found out that the duty he had died as result of cerebral hare morrhage due to result of cerabarla fracture of skull. The plaintiff duty hours on September 6, 1949 at the containment therefore police station as sub - section in charge thereof appear to have been from 9 p.m. onwards.

[5] Under the above circumstances , by the an order dated October 26 ,1949 Exhibit, 25, the District Superintendent of Police, suspended the Plaintiff and others from service with effect from October 26, 1949, pending departmental enquiry into the conduct of the plaintiff and other personnel of the police station.

[6] The plaintiff was prosecuted in the court of the city magistrate, First Class, Poona, for offenses under section 202 and 217 f the Indian Penal Code. In others words, the charge against the plaintiff was that he as intentionally omitted to give information and he as a public servant disobeyed dissections of had law with intent to save certain persons from punishment. By his judgment and order dated November 6, 1950, the learned Magistrate found the plaintiff not guilty and acquitted him under section 258 of the code of the criminal procedure. The result of the above acquittal was that by the an order dated January 29, 1951, the District Superintendent of Police, Poona [Rural], ordered the plaintiff to be reinstated in the service and gave directions as regards his posting, by the orders, it was provided that the plaintiff period of subvention of be treated as duty on full pay and allowances.

[7] The plaintiff joined service of as from February 1, 1951. On or about September 25, 1951, a departmental enquiry was started against the plaintiff. The charge leveled against the plaintiff appear in exhibit 28 dated S






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top