(1.) PETITIONER, Mansukhlal Tribhovan Joshi, has filed this petition, challenging certain orders by which he was dismissed from police service. Petitioner prays for a declaration that the enquiry proceedings preceding his dismissal were illegal, for setting aside the impugned orders and for an order of reinstatement into police service.
(2.) PETITIONER was, at the relevant time, an unarmed head constable. Respondent 4, Jethva, was, at the relevant time, Sub-divisional Police Officer, Surendranagar District. Respondent 3 was the District Superintendent of Police at the same place. Respondent 2 was the Deputy Inspector. General of Police, Rajkot Range, and respondent 1 was the Inspector-General of Police. Respondent 4 was entrusted, on 17 June, 1958 with a preliminary enquiry against petitioner in regard to an alleged love affair with one Ushakumari. Respondent 4 made his report on 2 July, 1958, whereupon respondent 3 ordered that petitioner should be charge-sheeted in that regard and appointed respondent 4 as an enquiry officer. The charge against petitioner was that whilst he was stationed at Limbdi police station and during the course of his official visit at the village Siyani, he had developed intimacy with Ushakumari in the month of March, 1957, which intimacy was continued by him after Ushakumari's transfer to Limbdi and subsequently to Chowki and that, in the course of that relationship, petitioner had made false promises of marriage to her and that, as a result thereof, Ushakumari had become enceinte and pregnancy was running in the eighth month. A copy of the charge was served on petitioner which contained an endorsement below it addressed to respondent 4. That endorsement stated that in all, eight documents were sent by respondent 3 to respondent 4 and that, these documents supported the charge. Amongst the documents so stated were a statement of petitioner dated 27 June, 1958, purporting to be recorded by respondent 4 and a report dated 2 July, 1958 made by same respondent. After petitioner had filed his written statement. The enquiry was begun in the course of which, two witnesses were examined. However thereafter, petitioner filed an application to the higher authority for the transfer of the enquiry to another officer on the ground that the conduct exhibited by respondent 4 in the course of the enquiry was such that petitioner felt that justice would not be done to him petitioner had asked respondent 4 to stay the proceedings, which request was not granted. Petitioner thereupon, absented himself from the proceedings. Thereupon, respondent 4 proceeded with the enquiry ex parte and submitted an ex parte report to respondent 3. In the meantime, another charge was enquired into against petitioner, in which proceeding, ultimately, petitioner was reduced from the rank of a head constable to that of an ordinary constable. After the proceedings in this second charge terminated, respondent 3 issue a notice against petitioner stating that he accepted the finding recorded by respondent 4 in the matter of Ushakumari and proposed dismissal of petitioner from service. This was done on 6 November, 1958. Petitioner replied to the show-cause notice and stated the circumstances in which he had absented himself from the enquiry proceedings. Thereupon respondent 3 set aside the enquiry proceedings sometime in March, 1959 and directed respondent 4 to proceed with the enquiry from the stage where it was before the ex parte proceeding was undertaken. Thereafter, four witnesses were examined before respondent 4 and that respondent submitted his report on 10 June, 1959. Respondent 3 issues a notice in which he stated that he accepted the finding of respondent 4 that petitioner was guilty of the charge and intended to dismiss petitioner from service. By that notice, respondent 3 called upon petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed. Petitioner showed cause, but, on 30 September, 1959, respondent 3 passed an order of dismissal. Petitioner preferred an appeal to the deputy Inspector-General, Rajkot Range, which was disposed of by respondent 2 on 26 September, 1962. The appeal was dismissed by respondent 2. Petitioner thereafter, preferred an application in revision to respondent 1 under rule 17 of the Bombay Police (Punishments and Appeals) Rules, 1966. That revision application was rejected on 8 April, 1963. Thereafter, petitioner presented the present petition.
(3.) PETITIONER has taken up a number of grounds in his memo of petition for challenging the original order of dismissal and the appellate and revisional orders against him. At the time of the hearing of the petition, however, Sri Chinoy learned advocate for petitioner, formulated only the following six submissions for the decision of this Court : (1) that the preliminary enquiry was bad because a copy of the report dated 2 July, 1958 made by respondent 4 was not furnished to him at any time; (2) that the departmental enquiry was bad because a copy of the application dated 4 June, 1958 made by Ushakumari was not furnished to him, although that application formed the basis of the preliminary enquiry preceding the departmental enquiry; (3) that the departmental enquiry was bad because copies of nineteen love letters alleged to have been written by petitioner to Ushakumari were not supplied to him. According to petitioner, he gas only shown a sealed cover in the course of the enquiry purporting to contain the love letters and that, the letters were not actually shown nor copies thereof supplied to him; (4) that the enquiry officer was disqualified to hold the departmental enquiry against him because that officer had conducted the preliminary enquiry against him and had made the report, on the basis of which the departmental enquiry was ordered and on which report reliance was placed in support of the charge; (5) that, though petitioner had requested the enquiry officer in his written statement to refer to his patrol book to show that he had visited Siyani only once in the course of his official duty, which reference would negative that part of the charge which stated that he had visited that village several times, the enquiry officer did not refer to his patrol book at all and that, therefore, the enquiry was also vitiated; and (6) that the enquiry was bad because a statement alleged to have been made by petitioner to respondent 4 and which statement was challenged by him on the ground that it had no been correctly taken down, was made use of by respondent 4 as a piece of evidence on the basis that the said statement had been correctly taken down and that, the same use was made of that statement by the appellate authority. In our judgment, it will be convenient to deal with submissions (1), (2) and (3) together, as they are interconnected, and submissions (4) and (6) also together for the same reason. Therefore, we have to proceed to first consider the correctness of submissions (1), (2) and (3), then the correctness of submissions (4) and (6) and finally, the correctness of submission (5 ).;