BABU SINGH SENGAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(ALL)-1965-3-3
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on March 03,1965

BABU SINGH SENGAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

QUILTER V. MAPLESON [REFERRED TO]
BIKRAM SINGH VS. SUMNEHRA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It prays that the order dated 30 August 1961 reverting the petitioner being in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution, be quashed.
(2.)THE petitioner entered the police force of Uttar Pradesh as a constable in 1944 and was confirmed in 1947. He appeared and passed the departmental examination for head constables in 1948 and in 1949 was appointed as a head constable on a permanent post. The petitioner was selected as a candidate for training as sub-inspector at the Police Training College. He completed the training course and was declared passed in 1957. With effect from 1 January 1958 the applicant was appointed as a subordinate sub-inspector of police in the district of Agra. The counter-affidavit states that the petitioner was posted at Agra under the orders of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Agra range, in accordance with Para. 406 (a) of the Police Regulations. Paragraph 406 (a) deals with " civil police " as contradistinguished from " armed police " and " mounted police " which are dealt with in Para. 406 (b) and 406 (c) respectively. The petitioner states that he was put on probation under Para. 534 of the Police Regulations. He was directed by the Senior Superintendent of Police to keep a training sheet in view of Para. 536 of the Police Regulations, and that he earned good entries in the training sheet.
(3.)ON 16 April 1961 that petitioner was posted as a sub-inspector at the police station, Indergarh. He was investigating a case under the Arms Act. During the investigation he searched the house of Ramadin and his brother Hardayal. In this connexion Ramadin lodged a complaint on or about 21 April 1961 with the higher police officials against the petitioner. He alleged that the petitioner was threatening Ramadin and his brother to involve them in a false case and that he had kept his brother in custody and released him only on having been paid a sum of Rs. 80 as illegal gratification and on having been promised payment of another sum of Rs. 20 for it. He prayed that the matter be enquired into and proper action be taken.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.