RANCHHODBHAI SOMABHAI Vs. J D NAGARWALA IGP GUJARAT
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Click here to view full judgement.
J.B.MEHTA, N.M.MIABHOY -
(1.) Petitioner Ranchhodbhai Somabhai has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India. He challenges in this petitions notice dated 21st September 1963 issued by respondent who was at the relevant time the Inspector General of Police Gujarat State calling upon petitioner to show cause why the order dated 26th February 1963 passed by his subordinate the D. I. G. reducing petitioner from the post of a II grade Head Constable to that of a III grade Head Constable for a period of six months should not be set aside and why petitioner should not be dismissed from police service.
(2.) The facts leading up to the present petition may at first be briefly stated. Petitioner was at the relevant time an armed Head Constable II grade posted at Bhalej Police Station Kaira District. In the month of December 1961 petitioner was charge-sheeted by the D. S. P. Kaira District on the allegation that petitioner had accepted a sum of Rs. 20/by way of bribe from three persons on 22nd June 1961. By the same order the D. S. P. appointed the Sub-Divisional Police Officer Petlad as the enquiry officer. That officer opined that the charge was not proved and submitted the papers to the D. S. P. The latter however differed from the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and tentatively came to the conclusion that petitioner was guilty of the charge of corruption and on that basis he issued a show cause notice on 13th May 1962 to petitioner calling upon him to show cause why he should not be reduced to the post of III grade Head Constable for a period of six months. Petitioner filed his reply but on 5th June 1962 the D. S. P. found petitioner guilty and reduced him from his post of It grade Head Constable to that of the III grade Head Constable for a period of six months. Petitioner filed an appeal to the D. I. G. P. That officer by his order dated 26th February 1963 held that the charge was not proved and ordered reinstatement of petitioner as II grade Head Constable. Thereafter on 21st September 1963 the I. G. P. respondent issued the impugned show cause notice. It is to challenge that notice that the present petition has been filed.
(3.) The main relief which petitioner prays is that of a declaration that rule 17 (wrongly mentioned as rule 18 in the petition) of the Bombay Police (Punishments and Appeals) Rules 1956 (hereinafter called the rules) is ultra vires the provisions contained in Article 20 clause (2) of the Constitution and/or is ultra vires the provisions contained in Article 311 of the Constitution. Petitioner also prays for a writ of prohibition and/or a writ direction or order of a similar nature restraining respondent from taking the proposed action and an injunction restraining respondent from taking further action under the impugned notice. Shri Imdad Ali the successor-in-office of respondent has filed an affidavit in reply in which whilst admitting broadly the facts on which the petition is based he has contested the legal contentions and submissions contained in the petition.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.