SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(MP) 93

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Dixit and Samvatsar, JJ.
RAMCHANDRA GOPALRAO - Appellant
Versus
D.I.G.POLICE - Respondents
Civil Misc. Case 23 Of 1956
Decided On : 04/11/1957

Advocates Appeared:
J.D.PATEL, S.D.SANGHI

The authority dismissing or removing a civil servant must be of the same rank or grade as the authority which appointed him.

Headnote:

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLE 311(1) - Dismissal of a civil servant - Authority competent to dismiss - Subordination of the dismissing authority - Reasonable opportunity to meet the charges - Scope and extent.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, was dismissed from service by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madhya Bharat, on charges of not investigating promptly and properly into a theft incident and taking a bribe. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal on the grounds that the Deputy Inspector General of Police was not competent to dismiss him and that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the order of dismissal was invalid on the following grounds: 1. The Deputy Inspector General of Police was not competent to dismiss the petitioner as he was subordinate in rank to the Inspector General of Police, who had appointed the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges against him as he was not provided with copies of the statements of witnesses who gave evidence against him and was not given an opportunity to cross-examine them. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police took into consideration the petitioner's record of past service and a complaint received against him in an opium case without giving him an opportunity to defend himself against these allegations.

Issues: 1. Whether the Deputy Inspector General of Police was competent to dismiss the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges against him?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Deputy Inspector General of Police was not competent to dismiss the petitioner as he was subordinate in rank to the Inspector General of Police, who had appointed the petitioner. The Court relied on the principle that the authority dismissing or removing a civil servant must be of the same rank or grade as the authority which appointed him. 2. The Court held that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges against him as he was not provided with copies of the statements of witnesses who gave evidence against him and was not given an opportunity to cross-examine them. The Court held that a civil servant is entitled to receive copies of depositions and reports of enquiry leading to the charges and failure to give such copies which are necessary for making a proper defence would vitiate an order of dismissal or removal of the civil servant.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police.

DIXIT, J.

( 1 ) IN this case, the petitioner Ramchandra Gopalrao Munshi has moved this Court for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash an order dated 30th July, 1954, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. , Madhya Bharat, dismissing him from service.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police in the then Ratlam State by the Ruler of that State by Dar-bar Order No. 9494 dated 31st December, 1945, and was in the service of that State on the date when the ratlam State merged in Madhya Bharat; that after the formation of Madhya Bharat and the merger therein of the Ratlam State, he was unpointed as a member of the madhya Bharat Police-Force, as by virtue of Ordinance No. 30 of 1948, issued by the Rajpramukh of Madhya Bharat, he was enlisted and enrolled as a Sub-Inspector and his name was included in the list of Sub-Inspectors prepared by the inspector General of Police of Madhya Bharat and published in the Madhya Bharat police Gazette dated 31st, August, 1950. The applicant further states that in April, 1953, he proceeded from village Ghatia to Sutarkhedi village for making arrangements to prevent an apprehended breach of peace between one Doulatsingh and some other persons over a piece of land; that while he was at Sutarkhedi, three bullocks belonging to the said Doulatsingh were stolen on the night of 20th April, 1953; that on 2nd May 1953 Doulatsingh made an application to the Deputy Inspector General of Police complaining that he, 1. e. , the petitioner, was not properly investigating into the theft, which he himself had instigated; that he made a similar application to the Superintendent of police and also to the Anti-Corruption Officer, Ujjain, to the effect that the petitioner was demanding a bribe; that on 1st August, 1953, Doulatsingh again complained to the Superindendent of Police, this time alleging that the petitioner had taken a bribe from him; that on these complaints an enquiry was ordered by the Superintendent of Police; that an enquiry was then held by the Deputy superintendent of Police, Ujjain, the charges being that the petitioner had-not carried on investigation according to law into the incident of theft which took place at the residence of Doulatsingh and that he had taken a bribe of Rs. 50 from doulatsingh; that on the conclusion of the enquiry, the Deputy Superintendent of police forwarded his report to the Superintendent of Police who without any further enquiry submitted his findings on the report of the Deputy Superintendent of police to the Deputy Inspector General of Police; that the Deputy Inspector general of Police forwarded a copy of the findings to the petitioner asking him to show cause why he should not be dismissed; and that the petitioner accordingly filed his reply before the Deputy Inspector General of Police who merely perused it and later on passed the impugned order of dismissal.

( 3 ) THE petitioner contends that the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police dismissing him from service is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the deputy Inspector General of Police was not competent to order his dismissal and that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to meet the charge as contemplated under Article 311 of the Constitution. The petitioner says that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges because:-

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police held the enquiry which he did without giving any notice to him and in his absence; that he, no doubt, cross-examined the witnesses whose evidence has been recorded in his absence, but he was not given any certified copies of the statements of those witnesses; 2. The notice which the Deputy Inspector General of Police issued to him was vague and did not specify any charge; 3. While making the order of dismissal the Deputy Inspector General of police took into consideration certain matters against the petitioner which were never the subject-matter of any cha

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top