HARIPRASAD RAGHURAM DAVE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order passed by thee Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, removing the petitioner from the police force. The petitioner was appointed by the District Superintendent of Police, District Surat, to the post of a police constable in the year 1948. In 1953 in the ordinary course of service, he was transferred to the City of Ahmedabad. In August 1959, he suffered from kidney trouble and was advised to have himself operated and was operated in the Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad in September 1959. The first operation was a failure. According to the petitioner, it had so happened because there was negligence on the part of the authorities of the Civil Hospital. He was advised to undergo a second operation. He was released from the Civil Hospital on the 31st (sic) of September 1959. Having lost confidence in the management and the staff of the Civil Hospital, the petitioner applied to the District Superintendent of Police to permit him to have the operation performed by a doctor of his choice, which permission was granted. The second operation was done on the 11th October 1959 Surgeon Dr.Navin Desai in his private clinic. The operation was successful. According to the petitioner he had to spend Rs. 650 to undergo this second operation. He alleged that he had to incur this large expense because of the negligence on the part of the authorities of the Civil Hospital. The petitioner having drawn the sympathy of his superior officers, on his request, was given an immediate help of Rs. 150 from the Police Welfare Fund with the department and was also given a loan of Rs.300. The petitioner, however, continued to make demands from higher officers that he should be given full help to cover all his expenses which he had to incur because of the alleged negligence on the part of the Civil Hospital authorities. The petitioner also averred that when the Inspector General of Police, Bombay State, visited Ahmedabad on the 31st March 1960, at his request gave an interview to him and at the time the Inspector General of Police had informed him that he will write to the Government for reimbursement of the medical expenses. Because of the long illness, the petitioner had exhausted his leave and, therefore, had to go on half pay leave and even from that half pay recovery was being made to reimburse the loan of Rs.300. he was thus in great financial difficulty and as no reply was given to him by the department to his requests to give him full help to meet the expenses incurred, he was exasperated. When he found that the department was not prepared to accede to his request, he addressed a petition dated 1st June 1960 to the Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat requesting him to take into consideration his case and to see that he was paid full medical expenses and was given only light duty in his service. In the said petition to the Chief Minister, he had mentioned that if he were not given an interview soon, he will be left with no other remedy except to resort to fast. Nothing was heard in reply to this petition to the Chief Minister also and hence when he was on casual leave, he went to the Sachivalaya on the 14th June 1960 at about 11-15 a.m. and waited at its entrance for an interview which was never given to him, so he left the place in the evening. According to the petitioner, the Inspector of Police, Navrangpura Police Station, reported on 14th June 1960 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Divisions, Ahmedabad City that the petitioner had gone on peaceful hunger strike from 11-15 hours on the 14th June 1960 and that he was sitting just outside the main gate of the Sachivalaya compound. Later another report was submitted on that day to that to the effect that the petitioner had withdrawn himself in evening from hunger strike. The petitioner then received an order dated 14th June 1960 suspending him from service. According to petitioner, he being on casual leave from the 12th June 1960 he himself ha not reported for duty on 14th June 1960 but on that date the Inspector of Police, Madhupura police station, late in the evening of cancelled the casual leave granted to the petitioner and directed him to present himself on duty, which order he had obeyed. He was, however, not allowed to join duty and was served with an order of suspension. On the 16th June 1960 he was served with a charge sheet. The charge framed was gross breach of discipline in resorting to hunger strike on 14-91960 at 11-15 hours outside the Sachivalaya for the redress of the alleged grievances. The petitioner was called upon to attend the inquiry on 17th June 1960 before the Superintendent of Police. In due course the Inquiry Officer then submitted his report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, on the 23rd June 1960 with a recommendation that the petitioner deserved a chance to improve and, therefore, he suggested that his pay maybe reduced from Rs. 40 to 35 for a period of one year. But the Deputy Commissioner of Police issued a show cause notice dated 30th June 1960 informing the petitioner that he proposed to dismiss him from police force and called upon him to show cause within seven days why the proposed punishment should not be awarded. The petitioner put in his submission in respect of the said show cause notice. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner of Police by an order dated 11/12th July 1960 removed him service. The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal against the said order, to the Board of Appeal appointed by the Commissioner of Police. The appeal, was, however, rejected on 14th October 1960. The petitioner then preferred a Revision Application to the State Government on 27th December 1960. For a long time, he did not receive any reply to the petition, so the he sought an interview with the Inspector General of Police which interview was granted. However, the said Revision Application was dismissed about which he was duly informed both by the Inspector General of Police as well as the State Government. That communication he received from the Government of Gujarat on 21st July 1961 and from the Inspector General of Police on 3rd August 1961.

(2.) In the return filed by the Inspector General of Police on behalf of the Government, it has been conceded that the petitioner had suffered from kidney trouble and that he had to be operated for removing a stone the kidney at the Civil Hospital and that unfortunately that the operation was not successful. The petitioner was then offered the services of Dr. Joshi, F.R.C.S., and an experienced Surgeon, to do the second operation, that the petitioner had refused and expressed his service to get himself treated by a private doctor of his choice. At that time, it was made clear to be the petitioner that the maximum help he could from the Welfare Fund could under no circumstances exceed Rs. 150/- as the said Welfare Fund existed for the benefit of the whole police force and could not afford to give a large amount to any one individual. After the operation when he resumed his duty he was actually given very light work by giving him telephone attendants's duty, which is considered in the police force. On the 1st June 1960 he had written a letter to the Chief Minister, Gujarat State, to the effect that if his grievance regarding negligent treatment at the Civil Hospital and the recovery of Rs. 20/- per month from his pay towards loan dues were not redressed, he would proceed on hunger-strike at Sachivalaya. The petitioner then requested for six days' casual leave from 11th June 1960 on the ground of illness of his wife. On the 13th June 1960, the Police Inspector, Madhupura reported to the then Commissioner of Police the fact that the petitioner was propagating amongst policemen that he was going on hunger strike from 14th June 1960 and requested for necessary action. The Commissioner of Police passed an order that proper and necessary watch may he kept and a report may be made. On the 14th June 1960 at 11-15 hours the petitioner was found at the Sachivalaya sitting near the entrance door of the Sachivalaya. On receiving this information the Police Inspector Navrangpura, Mr. N.C. Barot immediately proceeded to Sachivalaya and on enquiry from the petitioner as to what was the reason for the step taken by him. The petitioner told him that he was on hunger strike his complaint regarding his expenses for the major operation and the nature of work taken from him had fallen on deaf ears. The report was then immediately made by the said Police Officer to the Commissioner of Police. Then it was noticed that the petitioner withdrew from hunger strike in the evening on the said day. Because of these circumstances an order suspending the petitioner from service was passed pending departmental inquiry for indiscipline. Thereafter the charge-sheet was served on him and inquiry was held. At the inquiry two witnesses Mr. N.C.Barot, Police Inspector, Navrangpura and Inspector Mr.Zala of Madhupura police station were examined. The petitioner had cross-examined each of them. In his defence he had examined his wife. A report was made by the Presiding Officer and the Deputy Commissioner of Police issued a show cause notice and ultimately the Deputy Commissioner after receiving his reply, passed an order removing him from service. At this stage, we need not enter into other details mentioned in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State.

(3.) Mr. S.K.Zaveri, learned advocate for the petitioner, raised the following contentions in support of the petition: