1960 (10) TMI 100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vestigated by the Circle Inspector; and the Superintendent of Police, on the report furnished by the investigating officer, dismissed the appellant. The order was made on January 15, 1954, and the appellant submitted against the order several representations to the higher authorities. On May 18, 1958, the Inspector General of Police cancelled the dismissal order placing the appellant under suspension with effect from the date of the removal from service. The Inspector General of Police has, in the same order, come to the conclusion abcut the earlier order being without jurisdiction, and had proposed the appellant being dismissed from the date of his removal from service. The Inspector General has, therefore, directed the appellant to sho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that where absence of jurisdiction be clear, the refusal to exercise power under Article 226, would be incorrect In support of this last contention, reliance has been placed on U. P. State v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86, where it has been held that, should the illegality touching jurisdiction or procedure committed by an inferior court or tribunal, be so patent and loudly obstrusive as to leave on the decision an indelible stamp of infirmity Or vice, that cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal or revision, the superior Court would properly exercise the power to issue a writ of certiorari. The appellant's learned Advocate has further, urged that the Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent alone, can under the rules governing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;s ease, AIR 1959 SC 308, lays down the rule that the evidence should have been taken by the officer, who makes the final decision; for in Pradyat Kumar Bose v. C. J. of Calcutta, AIR 1956 SG 285, the argument was rejected, and the observation of Lord Haldane in the Local Government Board v. Arlidge, 1915 AC 120 at p. 133, has been described as instructive. That observation we would extract here: "The Minister at the head of the Board is directly responsible to Parliament like other Ministers. Ho is responsible not only for what he himself does but for all that is done in his department. The volume of work entrusted to him is very great and he cannot do the great bulk of it himself. He is expected to obtain his materials vicariousl....