Per MHASE S.B., J.: - The petitioner has approached to this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari and thereby requesting this Court to quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent No.2 on 10-3-1995 dismissing the petitioner from the service which was confirmed by the respondent No.1 in appeal on 14-10-1997. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter, in short referred to as "the MAT".) on 7-5-1999 passed in Original Application No. 632 of 1997 wherein both the orders were challenged by the petitioner.

2. On 1-9-1966 the petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable. In due course of time, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Police Head Constable in the year 1975. In or about 1981 the petitioner passed departmental examination and was selected to undergo the training for the post of PSI. In the year 1982 he was appointed as a PSI by the Commissioner of police, Mumbai. On 1210-1993 the petitioner was served with tile charge-sheet containing six charges. The departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner.

3. Enquiry Officer submitted the report. It is to be noted that the petitioner has participated in the departmental enquiry and thereafter the finding report was prepared by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer has recorded a finding that the petitioner is guilty of charge Nos. 2,3,4 & 6. Finding on charge No.1 was not given because the said charge was already deleted, since in respect of the said charge the punishment was already inflicted upon the petitioner. Enquiry officer has recorded a finding that charge No. 5 is not proved as against the petitioner. Thereupon a show-cause notice was issued by the respondent No.2. It was replied to by the petitioner on 29-1-1995 and 3-2-1995. Thereafter order dated 15-3-1995 came to be passed whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. After completing the formality of the departmental appeal, the petitioner has approached to the MAT by filing Original Application No. 632 of 1997. The MAT has dismissed his application by order dated 7-5-1999. Hence the present petition.

4. Shri. Bandiwadekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the respondent No.2 is bad, illegal and requires to be set aside. According to the learned Counsel, the respondent No.2 being Additional Commissioner of Police is incompetent to pass such orders. Learned Counsel further submitted that only authority who could have passed \ the order is the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai who was his appointing authority and not the Additional Commissioner of Police, Mumbai.

5. Shri. C.R. Sonawane, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondents- State submitted that the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is misconceived. According to him as per the provisions of law l the Commissioner includes an Additional Commissioner, as such the Additional Commissioner is not subordinate authority in any respect to the Commissioner of Police. Therefore, order passed by the Additional Commissioner - respondent No.2 is proper and valid exercise of power.

6. Learned AGP further submitted that section 2(6) of the Bombay Police Act lays down the meaning of various words which have been enumerated in the said Act. The meaning of word "Commissioner" has been provided to include a Commissioner of Police and Additional Commissioner of Police.

7. Section 7 of the said Act provides for the appointment of the Commissioner for Greater Bombay or any other area specified in the notification issued by the State Government in this behalf and published in the Official Gazette. It further provides that the State Government may appoint one or more additional commissioners of police for any of the areas specified in Clause (a). It is further provided that the commissioner shall exercise such powers, perform such functions and dut

Click Here to Read the rest of this document