Judges : T.K.JOSEPH
Gopinathan Nair - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Case No : O. P. No. 121 of 1959
Decided On : 08/06/1959
Advocates Appeared :
T. K. Narayana Pillai; D. Narayanan Potti; For Petitioner C. M. Kuruvilla; For Respondent
certiorari - Police Service - Act XI of 1122 (Travancore) - Art.311 of the Constitution - fair enquiry in consonance with principles of natural justice
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, was dismissed from service following an enquiry into alleged misconduct. The petitioner challenged the dismissal on the grounds of lack of fair enquiry and violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the enquiry preceding the dismissal did not adhere to principles of natural justice, as evidence was recorded ex-parte and objections to admissibility of evidence were over-ruled. The court held that the order of dismissal based on such findings must be quashed.
Issues: The main issue was the lack of fair enquiry and violation of principles of natural justice. Other issues included non-compliance with procedural rules and the existence of an alternative remedy through an appeal to the Governor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dismissal must be set aside as the enquiry did not satisfy the requirements of Art.311 of the Constitution, which mandates a fair enquiry in consonance with principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The original petition was allowed, and the order of dismissal was quashed. The petitioner and the respondent were directed to bear their own costs.
1. The petitioner who was a Sub-Inspector of Police in State service prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the order of the respondent, the State of Kerala, dismissing him from service and also for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent to treat the petitioner as still in service and to allow him his salary, other emoluments and benefits of service.
2. The facts necessary for the decision of the original petition may be briefly stated. The petitioner was the Sub-Inspector of Police at Kayamkulam in November 1956. Following an enquiry into certain acts of misconduct alleged against him and two other police officers, he was dismissed from service by order (Ex. P1) dated 12-1-1959. The case against the petitioner was that on the night of 20th November 1956 he took a woman to the Government Rest House at Mavelikara for immoral purposes and that he spent the night there in the company of an Assistant Superintendent of Police and another Sub-Inspector of Police who had brought two more women of easy virtue for similar purpose. The three officers are stated to have spent the night in a riotous manner drinking and causing disturbance to the other occupants of the Rest House. They left at 4 A.M. the next morning without making any entry in the register of the Rest House regarding occupation of the place, the previous night. Under instructions from the Inspector-General of Police, the District Superintendent of Police, Quilon, conducted a preliminary enquiry into the matter. He examined a few witnesses and finding that a prima facie case was made out he framed charges against the three officers and issued notices to them asking them to show cause why they should not be punished for scandalous conduct unbecoming of police officers. Ex. P2 is the notice issued by him to the petitioner and it reads as follows:
"On 20-11-56 at about 11 P. M. you then S.I. of Police, Kayamkulam, in company with (1) Sri K.A. Venugopalan, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Alleppey (2) Sri M.A. Chellappan Pillai, then Sub-Inspector of Police, Adoor and [3] Sri Kunjukutty, Tea Merchant, Kayamkulam took a young woman to the Government Rest House, Mavelikara, occupied the eastern room of the same till 4 A. M. that night evidently for immoral purposes, took alcoholic drinks and by your conduct and behaviour caused nuisance and disturbance to the inmates of the adjoining room. You made no entry in the Rest House Register about your occupying the room.
The above conduct of yours is scandalous and quite unbecoming at your official position. Please show cause within five days of receipt of this why you should not be handed up for punishment for the same. Copies of the statements obtained in this connection are hereto appended for your perusal."
The Inspector-General of Police reported the result of this enquiry to the Government and the Government passed an order (Ex. P3) dated 19-1-1957 suspending the petitioner and the other two officers pending an enquiry to be conducted by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, X-Branch. In addition to the charges framed by the District Superintendent of Police, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police framed one more charge, namely that of leaving their respective jurisdiction without previous permission. Ex. P4 is the notice given to the petitioner regarding this charge and it also gives the names of witnesses proposed to be examined. After an elaborate enquiry, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police found all the three officers guilty and he submitted a report to that effect. The Government then issued notices to the officers to show cause why they should not be dismissed from service. After considering the explanations offered by them, and after consultation with the Public Service Commission, the Government passed the order Ext. PI), dated 12-1-1959 dismissing the three officers from service. The other two
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.