- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against a decree passed by the lower appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff in reversal of the decree of the trial Court by which the suit had been dismissed.
(2.) THE facts lie within a narrow compass. Onkar Nath was a Foot Constable and was attached to Police Station, Gurdaspur. On the night between 1-8-1953 and 2-8-1953 he was on duty in the c. I. A. . , Police Post at Sujanpur. One Ghunnu (Ghinnu) who was a suspect and was in police custody escaped that night. Onkar Nath was served with a charge-sheet for having been delinquent and neglectful in the discharge of his duties as a result of which the suspect had escaped from police custody. A departmental enquiry was held against him by Shri Surinder Pal singh, the then District Inspector, who made a report on 23-11-1953. According to the report onkar Nath was guilty of the charge which had been framed against him. The Superintendent of police, who was the punishing authority, ordered his dismissal on 2-12-1953. Onkar Nath filed an appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, which was dismissed on 16-11-1954. A revision preferred to the Inspector-General of Police also failed on 27-7-1955. On 4-1-1956 Onkar Nath instituted a suit out of which the present appeal has arisen for a declaration that the order of dismissal of the plaintiff passed by the Superintendent of Police and the subsequent orders of the superior authorities maintaining the order of dismissal were unconstitutional, illegal, ultra vires, arbitrary, void and ineffectual, and that he still continued to be a member of the police force. The State denied the allegations of the plaintiff and asserted that the entire enquiry proceedings as well as the order of dismissal were in accordance with as the order of dismissal were in accordance with the rules and the law, and the dismissal was fully justified and was legal. (2a) On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Is the order of dismissal of the plaintiff unconstitutional, ultra vires, void, illegal, bad in law, arbitrary, ineffectual and inoperative for the reasons given in para No. 5 of the plaint? 2. Relief. The trial Court dismissed the suit after recording a finding against the plaintiff on the aforesaid issues, but on appeal the learned Senior Sub-Judge came to the conclusion that the requirements of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution and of the Police Rule 16. 24 (ix) had not satisfied and the order of dismissal had been made in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the aforesaid Article and the Police Rule. The State has come up in appeal to this Court.
(3.) THE principal ground on which the learned Senior Sub-Judge considered that the order of dismissal was illegal is that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff for showing cause against the action proposed to be taken. It would be necessary to state a few more facts in order to appreciate the contentions which have been canvassed on behalf of both sides in the present case. As stated before, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 23-11-1953. The superintendent of Police, who was the authority competent to punish the respondent, recorded the following order on 30-11-1953 (Exhibit D. 4): "f. C. Onkar Nath No. 704 is present today. I have asked him if he has anything to say about the departmental file, which has been prepared by the District Inspector. I have also explained to him that in this case he is likely to be dismissed, and, therefore, he can produce any further evidence of (or) supplementary statement in his defence. F. C. Onkar Nath says that he has nothing further to say. I have, however, given him another two days to think over it. " On the 2nd December, 1953 the Superintendent of Police made another order in the following terms (Exhibit D. 5): "f. C. Onkar Nath is present today. He has nothing to say except that he is innocent and should not therefore, be punished. " On the same date the Superintendent of police recorded another detailed order (Exhibit P. 10) in which he commented adversely at more than one place on the approach of the enquiry officer to the maternal certain other defects existing in the report and concluded by saying as follows: "in view of the above, I hold that Onkar Nath is guilty of the charge framed against him. It was entirely due to the charge framed against him. It was entirely due to his negligence that Ghinnu accused escaped from his custody. F. C. Onkar Nath is, therefore, dismissed from service from today, 2-12-1953, forenoon. ";