RAMA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was a police constable in the Chickballapur town police station, was charged with misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding which was commenced against him. The allegation against him was that he infringed the provisions of the Prohibition Act and misbehaved with a merchant of Chickballapur town on February 14, 1964. It transpires that in respect of the offence stated to have been committed under the Mysore Prohibition Act, the sub-inspector registered a case against the petitioner under S. 76 of the Act, although no prosecution in respect of that offence has yet commenced.

(2.) We are told that the petitioner declined to participate in the disciplinary proceeding on the ground that there was an impending criminal prosecution against him in respect of the same matter. In consequence the disciplinary proceeding has proceeded ex parte up to a particular stage.

(3.) The argument maintained by Sri Rama Jois on behalf of the petitioner is that the contemplated criminal prosecution is an impediment to the commencement of a disciplinary proceeding. It was said that the evidence which was proposed to be produced against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding was identical with the evidence by which the offence under S. 76 of the Mysore Prohibition Act could be proved and there could not be a parallel disciplinary proceeding.