1960 (11) TMI 130 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Decision Quashing Police Sub-Inspector's Dismissal

State of M.P. Versus Chintaman Sadashiv Waishampayan

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the dismissal of the respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police, was quashed due to a ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the dismissal order against the respondent.2. Applicability of the Union Police Force Regulation 1358F.3. Compliance with principles of natural justice during the enquiry.4. Justiciability of breach of Police Rules and Regulations.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Dismissal Order Against the Respondent:The appeal challenges the High Court's order quashing the dismissal of the respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police, by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The respondent was dismissed following an enquiry into allegations of bribery. The High Court found the enquiry flawed, denying the respondent a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, thus violating Article 311(2) of the Constitution.2. Applicability of the Union Police Force Regulation 1358F:The appellant argued that the High Court's previous decision in Jageram Malik's case should be reconsidered, emphasizing the Union Police Force Regulation 1358F, promulgated by the Military Governor under the Nizam's Firman. This regulation purportedly allowed the enquiry to be conducted in Hyderabad. However, the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to decide on this point, focusing instead on the principles of natural justice.3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice During the Enquiry:The Supreme Court scrutinized whether the enquiry denied the respondent a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The respondent requested specific documents, including statements from key witnesses and the file of Razakars, which were not provided. The Court found that:- The failure to supply the statements of Rajab Ali and Noor Bhai, which were crucial for cross-examination, denied the respondent an effective defense.- The refusal to provide the application initiating the preliminary enquiry and the Razakars file, which was reportedly lost, further hindered the respondent's defense.- The re-examination of a witness who initially denied paying a bribe, without providing his prior statement, was also criticized.These omissions were deemed to violate the principles of natural justice, as they prevented the respondent from effectively cross-examining witnesses and presenting his case.4. Justiciability of Breach of Police Rules and Regulations:The High Court was divided on whether a breach of Police Rules and Regulations was justiciable. The Supreme Court did not address this issue directly, as the primary focus was on the denial of natural justice during the enquiry.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the enquiry did not comply with the principles of natural justice, thereby denying the respondent a reasonable opportunity to defend himself as required under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed with costs.