MANGAL SINGH Vs. THE STATE
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Nevaskar, J. -
(1.) PETITIONER Mangalsingh s/o Gayadin was employed as a head -constable at Afzalpur police station, District Mandsaur. A complaint was made against, him to the District Superintendent of Police by one Shivsingh Rajput of village Lodh that he had ill -treated the complainant and had demanded a bribe from him.
(2.) THE District Superintendent of Police after mailing an enquiry found the allegations to be well -founded and was of the opinion that his dismissal from service was an appropriate punishment. He however took into consideration his length of service and directed his reduction in rank to the position of a constable for a period of two years.
The Petitioner preferred appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police who dismissed the same. On a further petition for revision to the Inspector General of Police the latter rejected the petition but at the same time directed the Deputy Inspector General of Police of that division to use his revisional powers in enhancing his punishment to that of dismissal from service after giving him reasonable opportunity to show cause why he should not be dismissed.
Notice was accordingly issued from the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, calling upon the Petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service for his conduct in connection with Shivsingh Rajput referred to above. The Petitioner appeared in answer to the notice and prayed for clemency on the ground of his long service extending over a period of 24 years. The Dy. Inspector -General of Police however ordered his dismissal from service by his order dated 17 -1 -1952. His appeal to the Inspector General of Police proved unsuccessful. A further appeal to the Government was not entertained.
(3.) THE present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was filed on behalf of the Petitioner mainly on two grounds which alone were pressed before us.
Firstly, it was contended that the Petitioner was appointed as a head -constable under the orders of the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior, prior to the integration of Gwalior State into the Madhya Bharat. His dismissal under the orders of the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Madhya Bharat, was therefore contrary to Article 311(1), of the Constitution.
Second ground of contention was that there was no proper compliance with the requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The Petitioner was not explained the charges against him and he was not given adequate opportunity to meet the same. It was also urged that there was no proper compliance with Rule No. 8 of Madhya Bharat Civil Service Punishment Rules 1950. In the return filed on behalf of the Respondent It was contended that the charges were duly framed against the Petitioner with respect to his conduct in connection with Shivsingh Rajput, and an enquiry into the allegations of said Shivsingh Rajput was made.
It was further averred that a notice (Copy annexture B) was given by the Dy. Inspector
General of Police on 24 -12 -1951 to show cause why lie should not be dismissed. In response to this notice, it is said, the Petitioner did not show any cause on merits, but pleaded for mercy on the ground of his long service and likely hardship to himself and his family.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.