Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of a direction be issued quashing the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Range, Bareilly, dated 21st of May, 1953 whereby the petitioner was ordered to be reduced to the rank of a constable and also the order dated 29th August, 1953 passed in appeal confirming the aforesaid order, and a writ of certiorari be issuect quashing the order dated 14th of May, 19S4 dismissing the petitioner and the ordter dated 18th October, 1954 passed in appeal confirming the order of dismissal.
(2.) The petitioner was serving as a Sub-Inspector of Police in the U. P. Police Service since the year 1949. In 1952, he was posted as Second Officer at out post Sarai Qila in the City of Bareilly. He had investigated a case under sections 376/342, I. P. O., and he had, in that connection, challaned one Ram Gopal. The accused in that case had befen committed to the Sessions Court and the hearing of the case started from 11th November, 1952 before Sri D. S. Mathur, District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly and a number of witnesses were examined. The petitioner had to appear as a witness in that case on the 13th of November, 1952. He reached the Court but it appears that he reached there late and when the case started before the Sessions Judge, he went out for a few minutes and when the statement of one Laddhan was finished, he was called to give-his statement. When he gave his statement, the Sessions Judge suspected that he was drunk. The Sessions Judge then sent a D.O. to the Superintendent of Police saying that the petitioner appeared before him late and he. was drunk when he came to the court. The petitioner's case, however, was that he was suffering from colic pain since 7th November, 1952 and he was given two injections of morphine and atropine and a mixture which contained a little quantity of brandy. On the D.O. being sent by the Sessions Judlge to the Superintendent of Police, a departmental inquiry under Section 7 of the Police Act was instituted against the petitioner. He was suspended and charges were framed against the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Bareilly by his order dated 10th December, 1952. Three charges were framed against him: (a) That while he was posted at the outpost Sarai, he associated himself with undesirable persons and drank liquor. (b) That on 13-11-1952 he failed to attend the court of the Sessions Judge, Bareilly, till 11.45 A.M., and (c) That when on 13-11-1952 he did appear in the Sessions Court he was found in a drunken and absolutely unsteady state due to which he was not considered in a fit condition to give his evidence in court. These three charges were investigated against him by the Superintendent of Police, "Bareilly. When the inquiry was going on against him under Section 7 of the Police Act on these charges and he was under suspension, on the 21st April, 1952, It is alleged by the petitioner that he was maltreated by Sri K. L. Chhabra, Assistant Superintendent of Police and on the oral complaint of Sri K. L. Chhabra, the Superintendent of Police also interrogated the petitioner and ordered the detention of the petitioner. As regards the incident which took place on the 21st of April, 1952, the petitioner served a notice under Section 80, C. P. C., on Sri Prem Swa-roop, Superintendent of Police and Sri K. L. Chhabra, Assistant Superintendent of Police of a proposed civil suit against them. That was served on them on the 24th April, 1953. After having recorded the statements of some of the witnesses, the Superintendent of Police gave his finding on the three charges against him. He found that charge (a) was not proved against the petitioner but from his statement on the record, he found both the charges (b) and (c) proved against him and along with his finding he submitted his recommendation to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Northern Range, Bareilly and recommended that he should be dismissed from service. A representation was made by the petitioner to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Northern Range, Bareilly against the finding of the Superintendent of Police and he also personally appeared before him. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, however, upheld the finding of the Superintendent of Police but ordered that he should be reduced to the rank of a constable. The petitioner went up in appeal to the Inspector-General of Police taut that was also dismissed on the 29th of August, 1953. A revision was filed to the Local Government which was also dismissed on the 6th April, 1954.
(3.) After receipt of the notice under Section 80, C. P. C., it appears that the Superintendent of Police ordered that action under Section 7 of the Police Act should be taken against the petitioner for having sent such a notice without taking redress through proper channel and thereby committed a misconduct. On that, a fresh charge was framed against the petitioner on the 23rd of January, 1954 by the Superintendent of Police and another inquiry was held after giving him a copy of the charge-sheet. On the 2nd April, 1954, the Superintendent of Police accepted the finding of the Deputy Superintendent of Police on this charge and proposed the Dismissal of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation but the Superintendent of Police passed an order of dismissal on the 14th of May, 1954. An appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police was rejected and consequently the present petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Superintendent of Police on the first three charges as well as the order of the Superintendent of Police dismissing the petitioner on the second charge.;