Gyanendra Kumar, J. - (1.) The petitioner was a constable attached to Manduadih outpost, Police Station Daswasmedh, Varanasi. A departmental enquiry under Section 7 of the Police Act was held by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (City) who found him guilty with the result that the Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, dismissed him by his order dated 22-8-1961. He then went up in appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police and in revision to the Inspector General of Police who both maintained the order of dismissal; hence this petition for the grant of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Senior Superintendent of Police, the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Inspector General of Police.
(2.) The allegations against the petitioner were that on the night of 2-4-1961 at about 11-30 P.M. he was lying in the verandah of a prostitute named Mst. Munni that there was some quarrel between her and another prostitute Mst. Zarina as to who should take betel leaves (Pan) first from Mithan Panwala, each trying to have preference over the other. On hearing the hue and cry over this affair, the petitioner is alleged to have descended from the verandah and after walking up to the shop of Mithan Panwala, rebuked and gave a beating to Mst. Zarina. The commotion and outcries attracted several persons of the locality including Kuber. One Abdul Ghaffar was passing that way and he is also alleged to have seen the occurrence. He later on sent a written report to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, about the beating given by the petitioner to Mst. Zarina. Thereupon proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act started against the petitioner and the enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (City) Varanasi. The Trying Officer after examining a number of prosecution and defence witnesses came to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioner had been established. At the end of her statement Mst. Zarina also made an allegation that during the course of the marpit the petitioner had also taken out a ring from her finger and had not returned the same to her in spite of several demands. In view of the previous good record of the petitioner, the Deputy Superintendent of Police recommended a lenient punishment viz., a reduction in his pay by 3 grades in the time scale of pay for a period of 2 years. However, the Senior Superintendent of Police did not agree with the recommendation of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He was of the opinion that the conduct of the petitioner in keeping Mst. Munni as his prostitute and in taking the side of his 'keep' and giving a beating to Mg. Zarina was an illegal and serious matter and rendered the petitioner unfit for the police service which was a disciplined force. He further found that the mere fact that the petitioner had a good record in the past could not be treated as an extenuating circumstance when the charge proved against him was so grave and serious. Therefore, the Senior Superintendent of Police was of the opinion that it was a fit case in which an enhanced punishment of dismissal should be inflicted. He therefore served a show-cause-notice upon the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from the police service for his gross misconduct and remissness in the discharge of his duties as also unfitness for the same.
(3.) On 13-8-61 the petitioner submitted his explanation which was found unsatisfactory by the Senior Superintendent of Police. In his explanation the petitioner had raised the plea that the Senior Superintendent of Police had no jurisdiction to enhance the punishment, which was turned down on the ground that the Deputy Superintendent of Police had not himself inflicted any punishment on the petitioner but had only recommended a punishment; as such there was no question of its enhancement by him (Senior Superintendent of Police). The latter was of the opinion that the petitioner had acted in a most irresponsible manner by giving a beating to Mst. Zarina, so he did not deserve to be retained in the disciplined police force. He accordingly dismissed the petitioner by his order dated 22-8-1961.;