DJGMalik, C.J. - (1.) Gulzar Ahmad Jafri, the appellant, was a Sub-Inspector of Police in the United Provinces and was appointed as such by the Inspector-General of Police on 28rd October, 1931. On 3rd October 1938, he was suspended by the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, on a charge of having demanded and accepted illegal gratification. On 20th July 1939, charges were framed against the appellant in accordance with certain rules made under the Police Act and an enquiry was held by a Board, consisting of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and two Superintendents of Police. There is no complaint about the procedure followed at the enquiry. The appellant appeared before the Board, and the Board, ultimately, after considering the materials placed before it held that the charges were proved and the appellant was dismissed from service under orders of the Deputy Inspector. General of Police dated 18th August 1980. The appellant appealed to the Inspectors-General of Police who dismissed the appeal on 20th July 1940. The appellant then went up in revision to His Excellency the Governor, United Provinces, but the revision was dismissed on 24th December 1940.
(2.) The plaintiff filed an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis on 17th February 1942. The leave was ultimately granted. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff were as follows: "(i) It be declared that the plaintiff's dismissal from service being illegal and ultra vires, he should still be deemed to be in service of the Crown as a Sub-Inspector of Police. (ii) That a decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant be passed in the following terms: (a) Rs. 551/4 being the amount wrongfully deducted from the plaintiffs' salary from 3rd October 1938, the date of his suspension upto the 18th August 1939 the date of his alleged dismissal. (b) Rs. 2,100 being the amount of his pay, from the date of the plaintiff's alleged dismissal upto the date of the suit at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month. (c) The plaintiff be awarded pendente lite and future salary till the date of his re-instatement. (iii) Plaintiff be awarded cost of this suit against the defendant."
(3.) The ground on which the plaintiff claimed the above reliefs was that the plaintiff had been appointed by the Inspector-General of Police and his dismissal by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police was illegal and reliance was placed on Section 240, Government of India Act, 1986. 3. The Federal Court, on 4th December 1941 had decided the case of Suraj Narain v. North-West Frontier Province, A. I. R. (29)1942 F. C. 3: (I. L. R. (1941) Kar. F. C. 165) in which it was held that the dismissal of a Sub-Inspector, appointed by the Inspector-General of Police, by the Deputy Inspector. General of Police, wag not in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 240, Government of India Act 1935, and was, therefore, null and void. The defendant filed a written statement on 4th November 1942 in which it is mentioned that by reason of the pronouncement of the Federal Court the order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police on lath August 1989 was vacated, and the Inspector. General of Police, after studying the evidence recorded by the Board, had dismissed the plaintiff on 8bh July 1942 with retrospective effect from 18th August 1939. It was further pleaded that, even if the order could not be retrospective, the utmost that the plaintiff could claim was the subsistence allowance payable during the period of suspension, i.e. an extra sum of Rs. 606-10-8, at the rate of Rs. 17-8/- per mensem, being one-fourth of Rs. 70/- the substantive pay of the plaintiff for the period between 18th August 1939 and 8th July 1942. The plaintiff filed a petition in reply in which he mentioned that no intimation was given to the plaintiff of the enquiry by the Inspector-General of Police and also no opportunity was given to the plaintiff to meet the charges levelled against him. In this petition certain interrogatories were also required to be answered and the interrogatory No. 2 was to the following effect: SPARA"Is it a fact or not, that the plaintiff was given no intimation by the Inspector-General of Police that his dismissal by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police on the recommendation of the Board was illegal and void and, therefore, be would hold another enquiry himself and also no opportunity was given to the plaintiff to place his case before the Inspector General of Police and the order was passed behind the back of the plaintiff without any enquiry."/SPARA The answer to this interrogatory by Jasoda Nand Asthana, Head Clerk, Office of the District Supdt. of Police, Jaunpur, on behalf of the defendant was as follows: "No. The Inspector-General of Police studied the file and the proceedings and the evidence recorded by the inquiry Board and based his findings on that material. No further opportunity was given to the plaintiff." The parties made a statement on 13th March 1943 that they did not wish to produce any oral evidence.;