DAVE. C.J.—This is a writ application under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is common ground between the parties that petitioner Shyamsingh was enlisted as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force on 3rd March, 1948 at Headquarter Neemuch. In 1958, the headquarter of the 3rd Battalion of the said Police Force was shifted to Ajmer. He made an application on 31st July, 1958 for grant of leave. He was granted leave for 56 days which was due to expire on 5th October, 1958. Before the expiry of that leave, he sent an application dated 3rd October, 1958 for extension of his leave by 20 days. It was received in the office of the Officer Commanding on 6th October, 1958, but it was refused on 10th October, 1958. Thereafter, he sent in his resignation to the Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Ajmer, but it was not accepted and since he failed to join the duty, he was proclaimed as a deserter. Respondent No.2 passed orders for his arrest. The petitioner having come to know of this, surrendered himself on 21st May, 1959. Thereafter, he was prosecuted under sec. 19 (m) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, which will hereinafter be referred as the Act, before the Assistant Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Ajmer, who was also Magistrate Second Class. He found him guilty and sentenced him to three months rigorous imprisonment on 30th May, 1959. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer. The appellate Court found that the trial court had committed irregularities in following the procedure laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was pointed out that the accused was put to a very lengthy cross-examination which was not warranted by law and, therefore] it was held that the whole trial was vitiated. The learned Judge accepted the appeal, set aside the petitioners conviction and acquitted him of the charge. The Commandant, 3rd Battalion, then commenced departmental proceedings against the petitioner and framed charges against him. After departmental inquiry under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Rules, he was given another show-cause notice about the proposed punishment of dismissal. On 16th January, 1962 he was dismissed from service. The petitioner then filed an appeal which was heard by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and it was dismissed on 26th May, 1962. It is against these orders that he has approached this Court by way of this writ application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal, which has been upheld in appeal, on several grounds and it would be proper to deal with them in seriatim.

4. It is contended, in the first instance, that this client was acquitted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge and a departmental enquiry could not, therefore, be instituted against him legally on the basis of the same facts. Regarding this objection, it would suffice to say that from the perusal of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, it appears that he did not acquit the accused on the merits of the case, but because he came to the conclusion that his criminal trial was vitiated on account of serious irregularities committed by the trial court. Under the circumstances, there was no bar against the departmental enquiry which was instituted under the "Act".

5. It is next contended that his client could be dismissed only under sec. 12 of the Act if he were convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment under the Act and that the punishment of dismissal could not be awarded under sec. 11 of the Act. It is pointed out by him that sec. 11 deals only with minor punishments detailed in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-sec. (1) and that these clauses do not prescribe the punishment of dismissal.

6. In order to deal with this argument, it would be proper to reproduce sec. 11(1) and 12 of the Act which run as follows:—

"Sec.11. Minor Punishments—(1) The Commandant or any othe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document