1960 (10) TMI 100 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Inspector General of Police in dismissing the appellant.
2. Validity of the dismissal order based on evidence not personally recorded by the Inspector General.
3. Legality of retrospective dismissal and suspension.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Inspector General of Police
The appellant challenged the Inspector General of Police's jurisdiction in dismissing him, arguing that the order was made to operate retrospectively. The appellant's advocate cited a Supreme Court case, U. P. State v. Mohammad Nooh, to support the contention that clear absence of jurisdiction warrants intervention under Article 226. However, the High Court found that the refusal to exercise power under Article 226 was incorrect in this case, as the appellant had the alternative relief of appeal to the Government. The Court emphasized that the error did not justify the exercise of power under Article 226.

Issue 2: Validity of Dismissal Order
The appellant's advocate further contended that the dismissal order was based on material not personally recorded by the Inspector General, which, according to the appellant, violated the rules governing the Police force. Citing the case of Amulya Kumar v. L. M. Bakshi, the advocate argued that decisions based on evidence recorded by persons other than the inquiring authorities would constitute an error of jurisdiction. However, the Court disagreed with this argument, stating that the deciding authority must conscientiously address the evidence before it to reach a justified conclusion. The Court held that the argument that every evidence must be collected by the dismissing authority lacked merit.

Issue 3: Legality of Retrospective Dismissal and Suspension
The appellant raised concerns about the retrospective nature of the dismissal and suspension orders. The Court acknowledged the appellant's appeal to the Government and refrained from making any observations that could prejudice the fair hearing of the appeal. The Court noted that the error in this case was not of jurisdiction or far-reaching effect to warrant intervention under Article 226. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal with costs, emphasizing the availability of the appellate authority for the appellant to seek redress.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition, emphasizing the availability of alternative remedies and the lack of jurisdictional errors warranting intervention under Article 226.