Deep Narayan Sinha, J. - (1.) This is a Rule issued upon the opposite parties, the Superintendent of Police in the district of Burdwan, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, district Hooghly and the State of West Bengal, to show cause why a Writ in the nature of Certiorari should not be Issued quashing the order of the first respondent, dated 27-6-1952 and the order in appeal therefrom passed by the second respondent dated 5-11-1952 and why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not issue directing the opposite parties to forbear from giving effect to the said orders and/or findings and why such other order or orders should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
(2.) The facts are shortly as follows:-- The petitioner has been serving in the Bengal Police for the last 15 years. He was last serving as an officiating Sub-Inspector of Police at Kalna in the district of Burdwan, to which he was promoted in 1946 from the rank of an Assistant Inspector of Police. On or about 31-12-1950 one Durlav Roy, a Zemindar of Burdwan, submitted a petition to the Inspector General of Police making several charges against the petitioner, e.g., that the petitioner had falsely implicated the complainant in the Sadar Ghat dacoity case. It was said that the petitioner had interpolated certain entries in the General Diary No. 993 dated 19-12-1949 and the seizure list of search in connection with the investigation of Burdwan P. C. Case No. 28(12)49 under Section 458, I. P. C. The matter arose in the following way. The petitioner was investigating into the Sadar Ghat dacoity case which took place on 17-12-1949. Next day, there was a burglary in the house of one Bibhuti Choudhury at Syamsayer. The burglars escaped, leaving behind an empty revolver holster. According to the petitioner, he had reasonable grounds for suspicion that this holster belonged to Durlav Roy; he approached Durlav Roy for the production of his holster and as it could not he produced, his house was searched. The case of Durlav Roy on the other hand is that the holster was not found at the house of Eibhuti Choudhury at all. The holster was missing and was picked up by two constables in front of his house and deposited in the Police Station on the morning of 19-12-1949. His case was that on the basis of this holster, the petitioner framed a false case against him in order to implicate him in the dacoity and the burglary. Further allegation is that the General Diary entry and the seizure list were tampered with to support this false case. Upon this complaint being made, there were certain investigations and on 17-5-1951 the Inspector General, Respondent No. 2, ordered that the Superintendent of Police, Burdwan, should draw up proceedings against the petitioner (and other persons with whom we are not concerned in this case). On 31-7-1951 charges were framed against the petitioner by the respondent No. 1 and he was directed to show cause why he should not be dismissed, discharged or degraded or otherwise dealt with for interpolation in the general diary entry No. 993 dated 19-12-1949 and the seizure list of search in connection with investigation of Burdwan P. S. Case No. 28(12)49, under Section 458 of the Indian Penal Code, and also for implicating the owner of a revolver holster in that case. The petitioner was asked to show cause by 13-8-1951. The petitioner states that he was not given a copy of the petition of Durlav Roy or of the report of the preliminary enquiries. The matter seems to have dragged on and several witnesses were examined, until 27-6-1952 when the first respondent made his report. In that report, the first respondent, after discussing the evidence, came to the conclusion that the holster was not found at the house of Bibhuti Choudhury and therefore the whole case of the petitioner must fail. He thereafter proceeded to say as follows: "I think, therefore, that the charge that the S. I. took advantage of accidental recovery of the revolver holster of Sri Durlav Roy to fabricate evidence against this person in order to implicate him in criminal case has been proved. Further from the evidence of the Handwriting Expert it had been proved that the charges on which the proceedings were drawn up, viz., that the S. I. made certain interpolations in the seizure list, have been proved and considering the circumstances of the case I also think it can be safely assumed that these interpolations were made with motive, namely, to strengthen the evidence against Sri Durlav Roy." "The offence of the S. I. has been serious. I have very seriously considered the question of his dismissal. He however appears to have a brilliant record in the matter of crime work. He has 58 rewards. In view of that I am inclined to show certain amount of consideration and order that he be permanently reverted to his substantive rank of A. S. I. from the date of this order being communicated."
(3.) Prom this order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, which appeal has been rejected. The grievance of the petitioner is based on the principle which has been enunciated by the Judicial Committee in the case of -- 'High Commissioner of India and Paidstan v. L. M. Lall, AIR 1948 PC 121 (A). In that case, Mr. Lall was a member of the Indian Civil Service. It was proposed to hold a judicial enquiry under Section 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, into the conduct of Mr.Lall while stationed at Multan during 1935-36. Eight charges were formulated and he was asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed or removed or reduced or subjected to such other disciplinary action as the competent authority may think fit to enforce for breach, of Government Rules End conduct unbecoming to the Indian Civil Service. Mr. Lall put in his written statement and Mr. Anderson, the Commissioner of Rawalpindi, held a departmental enquiry. He was unable to finish the enquiry and it was completed by Mr. Brayne. Mr. Lall was not given any copy of these reports and on the strength of these reports Mr. Lall was sought to be removed from the Indian Civil Service. The Judicial Committee upheld the decision of the Federal Court and quoted a portion of the decision of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court which ran as follows: "It does however seem to us that the sub-section requires that as and when an authority is definitely proposing to dismiss or reduce in rank a member of the Civil Service he shall be so told and he shall be given an opportunity of putting his case against the proposed action and as that opportunity has to be a reasonable opportunity. It seems to us that the section requires not only notification of the action proposed but of the grounds on which the authority is proposing that the action should be taken, and that the person concerned must then be given a reasonable time to make his representations against the proposed action and the grounds on which it is proposed to be taken........ In our judgment each case will have to turn on its own facts, but the real point of the subsection is in our judgment that the person who is to be dismissed or reduced must know that that punishment is proposed as the punishment for certain acts or omissions on his part and must be told the grounds on which it is proposed to take such action and must be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such punishment should not be imposed." The Judicial Committee then proceeds to say as follows: "In the opinion of their Lordships, no action is proposed within the meaning of the sub-section until a definite conclusion has been come to on the charges, and the actual punishment to follow is provisionally determined on. Before that stage, the charges are unproved and the suggested punishments are merely hypothetical. It is on that stage being reached that the statute gives the civil servant the opportunity for which Sub-section 3 makes provision. Their Lordships would only add that they see no difficulty in the statutory opportunity being reasonably afforded at more than one stage. If the civil servant has been through an enquiry under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, it would not be reasonable that he should ask for a repetition of that stage, if duly carried out, but that would not exhaust his statutory right, and he would still be entitled to represent against the punishment proposed as the result of the findings of the inquiry.";