Deoki Nandan, J. - (1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal in a suit far declaration that the order reducing his pay to the lowest point in the time scale of pay, that is, to Rs. 150/ - per month for one year, was bad in law and thus "the plaintiff is entitled to retribution of losses sustained by him." By an amendment of the plaint the sum of Rs. 986.93.P was estimated to be due to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a Sub -Inspector of Police. His case in brief was that he is entitled to free Government quarter wherever available. He was posted in July, 1964 as Sub -Inspector at police station Anwarganj, Kanpur, and provided a Government quarter there. On 24th August, 1964 he was transferred to the Control Room at police station Kotwali. He continued to occupy the quarter at police station Anwarganj, Kanpur. The plaintiff was not provided any quarter at police station Kotwali. The plaintiff gave a list of Police Officers who are occupying quarters at police station Anwarganj and at police station Kotwali, though they were posted at other police stations. However, on account of the grudge which Sri Ranjit Singh, station Officer of police station Anwarganj bore against the plaintiff he was ordered to vacate the quarter occupied by him at the police station Anwarganj. This was followed by an order dated 3rd May, 1965 of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (City) II, requiring the plaintiff to vacate the quarter. The plaintiff gave a reply. This time he was required by Superintendent of Police (City) to vacate the quarter and was threatened with "dire consequences" if he failed to do so. The plaintiff submitted replies and prayed for extension of time enabling him to get a house to live in by private arrangement, but could not succeed. Due to the plaintiff's act of not vacating the quarter although no action was taken against other persons who are similarly occupying quarters at places other than the place of their posting, the plaintiff was put under suspension on 27th August, 1965 by Superintendent of Police (City) Kanpur. The plaintiff challenged that suspension order as invalid and without jurisdiction. Proceedings were started against him under Section 7 of the Police Act, under the orders of Superintendent of Police (City) Kanpur. The plaintiff was charge -sheeted for disobedience of orders to vacate the quarter. The charge -sheet was given by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (City) who held an enquiry. According to the plaintiff the enquiry was not properly conducted; and on 26th November, 1965 he was served with a show cause notice with a copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 5th November, 1965, and after considering his reply the Enquiry Officer proposed the punishment of reduction of his salary to Rs. 150/ - per month for one year by the order dated 27th December, 1965. This order was passed without the prior concurrence of Superintendent of Police (City) Kanpur.
(2.) THE State of Uttar Pradesh contested the suit and supported the proceedings taken against the plaintiff as valid and proper. It was pleaded that the plaintiff gave arrogant replies and did not comply with the departmental orders. The plaintiff was accordingly placed under suspension and departmental proceedings were started against him. The proceedings were valid and within jurisdiction. Other technical pleas such as want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure etc. were also pleaded. The trial Court decreed the suit but the lower appellate Court has dismissed it.
(3.) THE grounds on which the validity of the departmental proceedings taken and the punishment imposed on the plaintiff were challenged have been summarised by the lower appellate Court in its judgment. In the first place the suspension order passed against the plaintiff was challenged as without jurisdiction. The suspension in this case was pending enquiry and the enquiry having terminated, and the punishment imposed being reduction in pay, the suspension does not subsist and the challenge against it does not survive any longer. The grounds on which the punishment was challenged before me by the learned counsel for the plaintiff -appellant were; firstly, that the preliminary enquiry which is a condition precedent for a departmental trial was not held secondly that the evidence was not recorded by the Superintendent of Police himself and lastly that some of the witnesses were not permitted to be examined by the Enquiry Officer. There is no merit in either of those grounds.;