Hidayatullah, C. J. - (1.) The appellant files his appeal by special leave against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Mysore High Court, February 25, 1966 by which the appeal of the State Government in a civil matter was allowed and the order of dismissal of the appellant who is a former Police constable was confirmed. His cross-objection was dismissed.
(2.) The appellant was a Police constable serving in the Dharwar District. He joined the Police force on August 1, 1945 in the former State of Bombay. On the States reorganisation, he came under the jurisdiction of the State of Mysore and it was on November 26, 1953 that he was dismissed after a departmental enquiry against him on the following facts. The petitioner had proceeded on leave for a month from January 1, 1953. On January 26, 1953 he applied for extension of leave for a month. A reply was received by him refusing leave, but only on February 21, 1953. He made a second application for extension of leave on the same date, but this extension of leave was not granted. On February 26. 1953 he undertook a 7 days' fast at a temple situated three miles from Dharwar and wrote letters to his superior officers to which we shall refer presently. A charge was framed against him under three heads which were that he was guilty of serious misconduct and indisciplinary action in that he remained absent from duty without leave or permission from January 1, 1953, that he had sent letters to his superior officers intimating his intention to go on fast with effect from February 26, 1953 "for the upliftment of the country etc." and that he had sent copies of these letters to several newspapers also. The third charge was that he did go on fast on February 26, 1953 and continued it till March 5, 1953 at the temple contrary to the discipline of the Police force. He was duly served with these charges and was also asked to obtain such copies from the record as he needed for his defence and to bring a friend to defend him if the liked. When the enquiry commenced, he was put a few questions by the enquiring officer which may be referred to in detail. "Q. (1) Have you received a copy of the charge sheet A Yes. Q. (2) Have you understood the charges A. Yes. Q. (3) Do you accept the charges framed against you A. Yes. Q. (4) Have you anything to say for breaking the discipline of the Police Force A. I had been on leave for one month. I applied to the Sub-Inspector for the extension of my leave by another month. I thought that my leave may be extended. Hence I did not join duty on 31st January, 1953. I was greatly worried by the injustice done by the police to the poor public and with a view to improve the Police Force and after informing the concerned authorities, I went on fast. I do not want any help from anybody for defending myself. I do not propose to cross-examine any witness that may be examined. Nor do I propose to examine any witness on my side. I do not know the Police Manual Rules. I submitted the petition in the interests of the general public. I did not go on fast in my self interest. I have done so in public interest. We are living in a democratic country. So whatever is in the interest of the general public cannot run counter to the discipline of the Police Force. I pray for proper justice on the basis of my reply and the documents which are against me, I do not desire to say anything more."
(3.) It will appear from this that he did not want to take any more part in the enquiry than to have the matter adjudged on the basis of his reply and the documents which were against him. This is what he had stated in the penultimate sentence of his own statement and in the earlier part, he had unequivocally admitted the facts which had been placed in charge against him. His explanation was two-fold, namely that he continued to absent himself because he thought that leave might have been extended and secondly that his proceeding to go on fast was in the interest of democracy and the country as a whole and also to improve the Police Force.;