T.S. Misra, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the decision of the Additional Civil Judge in Civil Appeal No. 648 of 1963.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are, in brief, as follows:- The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the entire proceedings taken against him under Section 7 of the U.P Police Act culminating in the dismissal order dated 6th June, 1960 were illegal, void, ineffectual and contrary to the provisions of law and that he continues to be in service as constable in the Police Force of U.P. State with all rights of pay and allowances to which he was entitled. He alleged that he was appointed as constable in the Police Force of the U.P. State and several proceedings under the Police Act were taken against him, which were in contravention of the mandatory provisions of paragraph 486-i of the U.P. Police Regulations in as much as the charge sheet was not in accordance with the said Regulations. he further alleged that the evidence and documents necessary to establish the charges were never placed in the file at the time of the starting of the proceedings and he was not given the reasonable opportunity of inspecting the documents. He also contended that the charge sheet did not give full information of the matter against him and the proceedings were therefore, in violation of para 490 of the said Regulations. The R.I. was not a gazetted officer and the Statements recorded by him behind the back of the plaintiff had been illegally made use of. The enquiry officer was not legally authorised to hold the same and the proceedings were in contravention of the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
(3.) The State contested the suit and denied all the allegations made by the plaintiff. It was alleged that the proceedings of the departmental inquiry were in conformity with the Police Regulations and Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and that the Enquiry Officer was fully competent to conduct the inquiry. It was urged that the suit was barred by Section 21 and 42 of the Specific Relief Act and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The jurisdiction of the Court was also challenged.;