Shah, J. - (1.) On March 10, 1955, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, State of Andhra passed an order dismissing the respondent (who was a sub-inspector of police appointed on probation) from service. On appeal to the Inspector General of Police, the order was altered into one of removal from service. The respondent then moved the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction quashing the proceedings of the Inspector General of Police including his order dated September 24, 1955 and the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated March 10, 1955 and for such other orders as the Court may deem fit. The High Court quashed the two impugned orders. Against the order passed by the High Court, this appeal is preferred with a special leave.
(2.) It is necessary to set out in some detail the facts which gave rise to the departmental proceedings against the respondent resulting in his removal from service. The respondent was at the material time in charge of the police station Kodur, Visakhapatnam District. On February 18, 1954, an offence of house-breaking and theft was reported at the police station and was registered on February 19, 1954. It was recited in the report of the Village Munsif of Vechalam that one Durgalu who was then absconding was suspected to be the offender. This Durgalu was apprehended by the Village Munsif of Kalogotla on March 5, 1954 and was handed over to the Village Munsif of Vechalam, who in his turn sent Durgalu to Kodur police station with village servants V. Polayya, Vechalapu Simhachalam, Kodamanchali Simhachalam and Koduru Sumudram. It is the case of the State that Durgalu was handed over to the respondent on the night of March 5,1954, but no written acknowledgment in token of having received Durgalu from the village servants was given by the respondent, nor was any entry posted in the station dairy, and Durgalu was thereafter confined in the police station from the night of March 5, 1954 without any order from a Magistrate remanding him to police custody. On March 7, 1954, the respondent entrusted charge of the police station to a head constable and left for Kakinada on casual leave for 5 days. He returned to Kodur on March 12,1954 After the departure of the respondent, some constables arrested one Reddy Simhachalam and brought him to the police station in the evening of March 7 1954. It is the case of the State that as a result of torture by police constables Nos. 1199, 363 and 662, Reddy Simhachalam became unconscious. The dead body of Reddy Simhachalam was found floating in a well near the police station on the morning of March 9, 1954, and an enquiry into the circumstances in which the death took place was commenced by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam. In the enquiry, Durgalu made a statement that he had witnessed the torture of Reddy Simhachalam, in the police station, by the three constables. Police constables Nos. 1199, 363 and 662 were then charged before the Sub-Magistrate, Chodavararam for offences under Sections 304 (2) and 201 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code, for causing the death of Reddy Simhachalam by torturing him and for causing disappearance of the evidence of his death. Before the Sub- Magistrate, Durgalu retracted his earlier statement and stated that the statement that he was an eye-witness to the torture of Reddy Simhachalam was untrue, and that he was induced to make that statement by the police. He deposed that he had escaped from the custody of the village servants before he reached the police-station Kodur on March 8, 1954, and that he was re arrested on March 8, 1954. The Sub-Magistrate discharged the police constables holding that once Durgalu the only eye-witness turned hostile, there was no direct evidence on which even a prima facie case could be made out against them. The record of the case before the Sub-Magistrate was called by the Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, suo motu. The Sessions Judge held it proved on the evidence that Durgalu was arrested on March 5, 1954 and was taken to the police-station Kodur and was wrongfully confined since that date in the Police station, and the story of Durgalu before the Sub-Magistrate that after he was arrested on March 5 1954 and was taken to the Kodur village on that very day he had escaped from custody and that he remained in his village Vechalam could not be believed.
(3.) A departmental enquiry was commenced in May, 1954, against the respondent. The charge in the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent after it was amended ran as follows: "Reprehensible conduct in wrongfully confining a K.D., Chandana Durgalu accused in Cr. No. 17/54 of Kodur Police Station from the night of 5-3-1954 to 7-3-1954 in the Police Station when he went on five days casual leave." To the charge was appended a "statement of facts" reciting, inter alia, that Durgalu was apprehended by the Village Munsif, Kaligaotla and was handed over to the Village Munsif, Vechalam, that Durgalu was sent by the latter with the written report with the assistance of village servants, that on the same night the latter handed over Durgalu to the respondent in the police station Kodur at about 12 mid-night, with the report of the Village Munsif and demanded acknowledgement but the acknowledgment was refused by the respondent, and that the respondent did not mention these facts in any of the station records and wrongfully confined Durgalu in the police station till March 7, 1954, when he proceeded on casual leave for five days. This, the "statement of facts" added, constituted grave and reprehensible conduct and hence the charge. The respondent submitted an explanation in which he submitted that Durgalu was not handed over to him on March 5, 1954 as alleged nor at any time before he proceeded on March 7, 1954, on casual leave. His plea was that when he proceeded on leave he entrusted charge of the police station to the head constable leaving destructions to trace Durgalu and to take action.;