P. C. MALLICK, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff was a constable in the Calcutta Police. He was a permanent incumbent in that office. On February 7, 1955, he was served with an order of dismissal. The order of dismissal is challenged in this suit, on the ground that it is unauthorised and contrary to the provision of the Constitution. A declaration is claimed that the order of dismissal is invalid and that the plaintiff is still in service. Alternatively, reinstatement or damages for wrongful dismissal is claimed. The suit is instituted after service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) IN the written statement filed by the defendant it is contended that the order of dismissal is valid and not contrary to the provision of the Constitution. The validity and sufficiency of the notice under section, 80 has also been disputed. The learned Advocate-General, however, appearing for the defendant did not press this point and the only point I am invited to decide in this suit is whether the order of dismissal is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. The facts relevant for the determination Of this question are not in dispute. No evidence, oral or documentary, ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document