N. M. MIABHOY, M. U. SHAH, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER Motising Chhagusing Vaghela has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no dispute that at all the relevant times petitioner was an unarmed Police Head Constable and as such an employee of the former Bombay State The original respondent was Shri C. M. Thaker who was District Superin- tendent of Police Mehsana. There is no dispute that he was at the relevant time the officer competent to dismiss petitioner from service The present respondent Shri S. D. Mehta is the successor-in-office of the original respondent Shri C. M. Thaker. It will be convenient to mention the facts leading up to the present petition at first. On 16th April 1959 petitioner was serving at Patan Police Station District Mehsana. On that day he was suspended by the original respondent on the ground that he was involved in a corruption case. Subsequently petitioner was prosecuted in Special Case No. 3 of 1959 before the learned Special Judge Mehsana on the allegation that on or about 25th January 1959 petitioner had accepted a bribe of Rs. 90. 00 from one Shanker Parshottam of village Borsan as motive or reward for showing favour to the said Shanker Parshottam viz. to forbear from prosecuting that person for an alleged offence of trafficing in women and that the favour was shown by petitioner in the exercise of his official function. On 30th September 1959 petitioner was acquitted by the learned Special Judge and he ordered that a B-Summary might be granted. Aggrieved by this order of acquittal the State Government preferred an appeal to this High Court the appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1960. That appeal was dismissed by this Court by a judgment delivered on 14th and 15th September 1960. This Court not only upheld the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge but held that on the evidence the conclusion is irresistible that the case which has been alleged against the accused is without any founda- tion and concocted. Petitioners grievance is that though according to Instruction No. 5 (iii) (a) issued by the former Government of Bombay and published in 1958 in the book entitled Instructions regarding the holding of Departmental Enquiries against Police Officers and below the rank of Police Inspectors of Police Force in the State of Bombay peti- tioner was entitled to be reinstated in service with minimum delay petitioner was not reinstated in service for a long period of time and that instead of such reinstatement petitioner was served with a charge- sheet on 16th October 1961 in which two charges were levelled against him and a departmental enquiry was proposed to be instituted against him. The first charge in this departmental charge-sheet was the same as the charge which was framed in the criminal trial. The second charge was that petitioner had failed to obey the legal orders of the Police Ins- pector Anti Corruption Branch at the time when the trap on 25th Janu- ary 1959 was implemented by him that he tried to run away on that occasion that he scuffled with the above officer and that he caused him bodily injury. The show cause notice mentioning the aforesaid charges was given to petitioner by the original respondent. Petitioner appeared in response to this notice and contended before the original respondent that he had no authority to hold the departmental enquiry and that the hold- ing of the departmental enquiry constituted a contempt of the High Court. The original respondent however proceeded further with the enquiry and after recording evidence summed up his findings in an order dated 31st March 1962 a copy of which was served to petitioner. The original respondent thereafter on 1st April 1962 issued the second show cause notice to petitioner informing him that petitioner should show cause why he should not be dismissed from service on the basis of the findings recorded by him against petitioner. The original respondent held that both the aforesaid charges

Click Here to Read the rest of this document