SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
10th April, 1963
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
State of A.P. and others, Appellants
Versus
S. Sree Rama Rao, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 626 of 1961.
M/s. T. V. R. Tatachari and P. D. Menon Advocates, for Appellants;
Versus
Mr. K. Bhimasankaram, Senior Advocate (Mr. T. Satyanarayana, Advocate with him), for Respondent.
W.P. No. 922 of 1956, D/- 18-11-1959 - A.P.
-held, High Court may interfere with departmental proceedings conducted in manner inconsistent with rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules or affected by extraneous consideration or conclusion is arbitrary or capricious
-held, mere fact that ground of ‘reprehensible conduct’ was not included in charge did not vitiate enquiry.
- held, statement of enquiry officer was not erroneous.
The judgment is in relation to service law, specifically concerning departmental proceedings and the disciplinary actions taken against a public servant (!) (!) .
Judgement
SHAH, J. : On March 10, 1955, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, State of Andhra passed an order dismissing the respondent (who was a sub-inspector of police appointed on probation) from service. On appeal to the Inspector General of Police, the order was altered into one of removal from service. The respondent then moved the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction quashing the proceedings of the Inspector General of Police including his order dated September 24, 1955 and the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated March 10, 1955 and for such other orders as the Court may deem fit. The High Court quashed the two impugned orders. Against the order passed by the High Court, this appeal is preferred with a special leave.
2. It is necessary to set out in some detail the facts which gave rise to the departmental proceedings against the respondent resulting in his removal from service. The respondent was at the material time in charge of the police station Kodur, Visakhapatnam District. On February 18, 1954, an offence of house-breaking and theft was reported at the police station and was registered on February 19, 1954. It was recited in the report of the Village Munsif of Vechalam that one Durgalu who was then absconding was suspected to be the offender. This Durgalu was apprehended by the Village Munsif of Kalogotla on March 5, 1954 and was handed over to the Village Munsif of Vechalam, who in his turn sent Durgalu to Kodur police station with village servants V. Polayya, Vechalapu Simhachalam, Kodamanchali Simhachalam and Koduru Sumudram. It is the case of the State that Durgalu was handed over to the respondent on the night of March 5,1954, but no written acknowledgment in token of having received Durgalu from the village servants was given by the respondent, nor was any entry posted in the station dairy, and Durgalu was thereafter confined in the police station from the night of March 5, 1954 without any order from a Magistrate remanding him to police custody. On March 7, 1954, the respondent entrusted charge of the police station to a head constable and left for Kakinada on casual leave for 5 days. He returned to Kodur on March 12,1954 After the departure of the respondent, some constables arrested one Reddy Simhachalam and brought him to the police station in the evening of March 7 1954. It is the case of the State that as a result of torture by police constables Nos. 1199, 363 and 662, Reddy Simhachalam became unconscious. The dead body of Reddy Simhachalam was found floating in a well near the police station on the morning of March 9, 1954, and an enquiry into the circumstances in which the death took place was commenced by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam. In the enquiry, Durgalu made a statement that he had witnessed the torture of Reddy Simhachalam, in the police station, by the three constables. Police constables Nos. 1199, 363 and 662 were then charged before the Sub-Magistrate, Chodavararam for offences under Sections 304 (2) and 201 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code, for causing the death of Reddy Simhachalam by torturing him and for causing disappearance of the evidence of his death. Before the Sub- Magistrate, Durgalu retracted his earlier statement and stated that the statement that he was an eye-witness to the torture of Reddy Simhachalam was untrue, and that he was induced to make that statement by the police. He deposed that he had escaped from the custody of the village servants before he reached the police-station Kodur on March 8, 1954, and that he was re arrested on March 8, 1954. The Sub-Magistrate discharged the police constables holding that once Durgalu the only eye-witness turned hostile, there was no direct evidence on which even a prima facie case could be made out against them. The record of the case before the Sub-Magistrate was called by the Session
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.