1972 (7) TMI 118 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in approaching the High Court.
2. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Police to dismiss the appellant.
3. Alleged bias and malafides in the departmental proceedings.
4. Denial of opportunity to adduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
5. Applicability of Article 226 of the Constitution for relief.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Approaching the High Court:
The appellant's petition was dismissed by the Calcutta High Court on the grounds of inordinate delay. The learned Single Judge found the explanation for the delay, which included the appellant's departure to the Andaman Islands to avoid prosecution, unconvincing. The Division Bench upheld this decision, emphasizing that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not approaching the Court within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court concurred, noting that the appellant's peculiar explanation for the delay had been disbelieved on good and reasonable grounds by both the Single Judge and the Division Bench. The Court reiterated the principle that relief under Article 226 of the Constitution should be sought at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity.

2. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Police to Dismiss the Appellant:
The main argument on merits before the learned Single Judge was the absence of power in the Deputy Commissioner of Police to dismiss the appellant, as he was allegedly lower in rank than the appointing authority. Although the appellant was debarred from raising this question for the first time before the High Court, the learned Single Judge considered and decided it. The Judge held that the Deputy Commissioner of Police was of the same grade and status as the appointing authority, thus there was no violation of Article 311(1) of the Constitution. The dismissal was also confirmed by the higher authority of the Inspector General. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with this finding.

3. Alleged Bias and Malafides in the Departmental Proceedings:
The appellant alleged bias and ill-will on the part of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, S. Mukherji, who had allegedly harassed him due to a grudge. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench found no substance in these allegations. The Supreme Court noted that the questions of bias, ill-will, and malafides are largely factual and difficult to decide based on conflicting affidavits. The Court observed that the Deputy Commissioner's orders being disobeyed did not make him a complainant and a witness, and the Enquiring Officer had merely collected evidence and made a report. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, which had specifically repelled the allegations of malafides and ill-will.

4. Denial of Opportunity to Adduce Evidence and Cross-Examine Witnesses:
The appellant contended that he was denied the opportunity to adduce relevant evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had been duly served with show cause notices and had produced evidence considered relevant by the Enquiring Officer. Permission to call other evidence deemed irrelevant and to cross-examine some witnesses not relied upon by the prosecution was not given. The five prosecution witnesses were cross-examined by the appellant, and he had examined seven defense witnesses. The Court found that the assertions and counter-assertions on this issue were of such a nature that they could not be decided merely on affidavits in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. Applicability of Article 226 of the Constitution for Relief:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the power to give relief under Article 226 is discretionary. The Court referred to the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal and Ors, which stated that the period of limitation for ordinary suits could be a reasonable standard for measuring delay in seeking remedy under Article 226, but it is not an inflexible rule. The Court reiterated that the special remedy under Article 226 is not intended to supersede ordinary civil actions and that delay in seeking this remedy could lead to refusal of relief. The Court found that the appellant's case involved seriously contested questions of fact, making it more appropriate for resolution through ordinary civil proceedings rather than under Article 226.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the Calcutta High Court on the grounds of inordinate delay and the factual nature of the contested issues. The Court emphasized the discretionary nature of relief under Article 226 and the importance of seeking such relief promptly. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.