Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as a constable of Police, in 1933. He was appointed and confirmed in the rank of Head Constable of the Special Armed Forces, District Burdwan, in 1949. In 1951, the petitioner with one Naik and six Constables was posted at Debipur checking gate, District Burdwan, to assist Civil Supply Officers in checking rice smuggling from the district. On May 7, 1951, the Superintendent of Police, Burdwan, (respondent No. 2) with other officers, came in a lorry to the checking post. The Superintendent of Police remained incognito inside the lorry, which was also loaded with rice and other articles. The intention was to form a trap and the driver of the lorry was given certain currency notes with directions to pay there out any illegal gratification that may be demanded at the checking gate. He was also instructed not to disclose the identity of the officers that were travelling incognito. It is alleged that at the checking gate, the petitioner along with another Constable demanded illegal gratification from the driver. On or about May 9, 1951, the petitioner was recalled to Head Quarters at Burdwan and placed under suspension. On May 12, 1951, he was served with a charge-sheet charging him with having been guilty of gross misconduct in demanding illegal gratification from the driver of the said lorry. He was asked to show cause, why he should not be dismissed, degraded, reduced or otherwise severely dealt with if found guilty of the charge. The charge-sheet was signed by Mr, A. C. Chakravarty, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Burdwan, but it was countersigned by the Superintendent of Police. Burdwan, (respondent No. 2) with the word "approved". Thereafter, proceedings were drawn up, numbered as Proceeding No. 28 of 1951, and Mr. A.C. Chakravarty, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Burdwan, made the enquiry. He recorded the evidence of various witnesses including that of the Superintendent of Police, (respondent No. 2). In the record, he figures as P. W. 3. It appears that in June, 1951. the petitioner made a prayer that the enquiry should be by another Superintendent of Police, but the application was rejected on the ground that there was no bar in the Police Regulations against the Superintendent figuring as a complainant as well as passing final orders.
(2.) It was pointed out that against the final order, there was a right of appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General. The deposition of witnesses was concluded on or about the 18th June, 1951, and the petitioner submitted his defence on the 7th July, 1951. On the 17th July, 1951, the enquiring officer recorded his finding, a copy of which was furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a written petition showing cause why the findings of the enquiring officer should not be given effect to. The matter then passed into the hands of the Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 2, and I set out below the relevant part of his order, dated the 10th August, 1951, whereby he dismissed the petitioner from service : "I have studied the evidence adduced in this case, the reply of the accused Head Constable and the findings of the enquiring officer. I have further studied the written cause, he showed against the giving effect to the findings of the enquiring officer. I think the charges have been clearly established. I have studied the reply of the accused Head Constable and also the written cause shown in these documents. He has tried to establish that he was always inside the checking hut and that his identification was difficult due to the darkness of the night. But it must be remembered that the negotiations continued for a long period and at a close distance and in the case of P.W. 1, face to face. The statement of P.W. 1, has been supported by P.W. 2, and P.W. 3. Even if P.W.s. 2 and 3, who were persons of responsibility and integrity were not there, it would be a matter of constable Poddar's word against word of driver Sasadhar..... In any case, the evidence of P.W 1 reinforced by P.W. 2 and P. W. 3, is overwhelming. I, therefore, accept the findings of the enquiring officer and order that the Head Constable Shibanandan Singh be dismissed from service with effect from to-day."
(3.) It must be pointed out that P.W. 3, was the Superintendent of Police himself. The result is that in arriving at his opinion the Superintended of Police, respondent No. 2, read his own evidence, gave himself a certificate and found the evidence of prosecution witnesses including himself, as overwhelming.;