Khosla J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Joti Parshad who was dismissed from the Police Force by an order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon. The petitioner was at that time officiating as Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police but he was suspended by the order of the Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon, who held an enquiry into his conduct before passing the order of dismissal. The petitioner appealed to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police but his appeal was dismissed. A revision petition presented to the Inspector General of Police met a similar fate. He then moved the extraordinary powers of this Court by means of the present petition under Article 226.
(2.) Before setting out the points urged on behalf of the petitioner it is necessary to give a few facts and dates. The petitioner was recruited to the Police Force as a constable on 2-10-1939. Three years later he was confirmed and two years later on 1-10-1944, he was promoted to the post of the Head Constable. He was again promoted about five years later to the post of the Assistant Sub-Inspector. In 1951 he was transferred to Gurgaon and on 3-12-1952, he was transferred to Karnal. From there he went to the Recruiting Training School at Hoshiarpur, and while he was there an enquiry into the conduct of a Head Constable Ram Saran Das was started at Gurgaon. The allegation against Ram Saran Das was that he had received a bribe from the present petitioner. The petitioner was to be examined as a witness in the case and a wireless message was sent to him at Hoshiarpur asking him to proceed to Gurgaon. This wireless message was sent on 4-4-1953, and two days later he was examined as a witness in the course of the enquiry against Ram Saran Das, The Superintendent of Polic found that Ram Saran pas was guilty of receiving a bribe and dismissed him. Proceedings were then taken against the petitioner for having given the bribe and in the course of this enquiry the petitioner refused to answer questions or to cooperate. He maintained an attitude of persistent and obstinate non-co-operation. His contention was that he would not receive a fair deal at the hands of the Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon, who had already found Ram Saran Das guilty. The petitioner wanted another Enquiry Officer to be appointed and made written applications in this behalf. The Superintendent of Police took the view that the recalcitrant and refractory conduct of the petitioner was highly objectionable and that he was liable to be punished for disobedience and refusal to answer questions. He, therefore, framed fresh charges of misconduct against him and after a somewhat summary enquiry pronounced him guilty. He then called upon him to show cause why he should be dismissed, and after observing this formality passed orders of dismissal. In the course of the proceedings the Superintendent of Police had passed the order suspending the petitioner and by this order of suspension the petitioner was reduced to the rank of the Head Constable which was his substantive rank.
(3.) There were two orders of dismissal against the petitioner, one on the offence of giving a bribe to Ram Saran Das and on the charge of misconduct in refusing to obey orders and refusing to answer questions. The first order was quashed on revision by the Inspector-General of Police. Ram Saran Das had already been found innocent of the charge of receiving a bribe and the Inspector-General of Police, therefore, acquitted the petitioner of the charge of offering a bribe to Ram Saran Das. He, however, upheld the order of dismissal on the second charge of misconduct and in passing orders commented on the attitude taken up by the petitioner. He observed: "He should have continued to take part in the enquiry and in his defence or appeal made the points which he is now making. There is no provision in the Police Rules to withhold an enquiry pending applications of this sort made by a defaulter. Nor is such a situation contemplated, as in a disciplined Force, essence and stress is on maintenance of discipline. Obstructive or delaying tactics are not permitted which is obvious from P. R. 16.25(1).";