9911796707
TMI Blog1951 (5) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it appears that for the purpose of establishing this fact before the Court the petitioner's solicitor by a letter dated 9-4-1951 called upon the respondents' solicitor to produce the Police Gazette dated 13-1-1928, and the service book of the petitioner at the hearing but none of these documents have been produced on behalf of the respondents. The same request was repeated at the hearing but with no effect. 3. It is alleged in the petition that until 17-12-1947, the petitioner used to work in the Force Department of the Inspector General of Police office along with one Upanand'a Mukherjee and one Bolai Chand Mukherji. 4. The Inspector General of Police office is divided into three departments, (1) The Intelligence Branch department which operates from 13, Lord Sinha Road, (2) Force Department and (3) the Budget Department which operates at the Writers Buildings. 5. Until 17-12-1947 the petitioner was an Assistant in the Force Department, while the said Upananda was in charge as the Assistant Inspector General of Police and the said Bolai was his Head Assistant. The said Bolai Chand who had as long a service to his credit as the petitioner is alleged to have ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the alleged offence of dishonesty and ordered his dismissal from service. Prior to that date respondent 1 also came to conclusion that the petitioner had been so guilty and recommended his dismissal on 18-4-1950. 13. The petitioner challenges the findings and orders of the respondents as dishonest perverse and against the weight of evidence. It is stated in the petition that the departmental enquiry is not warranted by law and the respondents acted without jurisdiction in conducting it. (Para 19 of the petition). The portion of the evidence given by the said Amulya at the enquiry has been set out in the petition and it appears therefrom that Amulya admitted before the enquiring officer that the alleged bribe of Rs. 10/- said to have been paid to the petitioner was not paid by way of bribe but it was an amount which Amulya had taken by way of loan from the petitioner and which he repaid to the petitioner later on. 14. In the circumstances the petitioner moved this Court for the reliefs stated above and also for certain other directions and reliefs but this Court on 30-1-1951, issued a rule nisi only for the quashing of the departmental proceedings and the orders made in relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... affidavit in reply affirmed by him on 6-4-1951, but this was objected to by the learned counsel for the respondents and I have rejected the said affidavit. 18. The main contention of Mr. R. Chaudhuri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the order of dismissal having been passed by an officer not competent to pass it the order must be held to have been made without jurisdiction and should, therefore, be quashed in these proceedings. 18A. Rule 4(a) of the Police Regulations, Bengal, 1915, is as follows: Appointments of lower grade clerks will also be made by the Deputy Inspector General of the Range on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police. Rule 7: Every person appointed as a ministerial officer shall receive a letter of appointment under the signature of the officer appointing him and the appointment shall be notified in the Police Gazette. 19. As I have pointed out before, the Police Gazette the Service Records Book have been kept back by the respondents and as it is evident from para 1 of the petition that the petitioner was appointee as a lower grade clerk 23 years ago i.e., some time in 1927 or 1928, it must be presumed that he was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is want or excess of jurisdiction in relation to such proceedings, and further the existence of any alternative remedy is no bar to this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In my view the contention of Mr. Choudhuri must be accepted. 25. It has been held that for the purpose of a Writ of Certiorari the term Judicial Act does not necessarily mean acts of a Judge or legal tribunal sitting for the determination of matters of law but it is an act done by competent authority upon consideration of facts and circumstances and imposing liability of affecting the rights of others. The word quasi-judicial implies the existence of the judicial element in the process leading to the decision to quote the words of the learned Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the case of -- 'Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani' [1950]1SCR621 . If a judicial approach is required before a decision can be arrived at the decision will be quasi-judicial. 25A. Fazl Ali, J. in the same case observed as follows: Without going into the numerous cases cited before us, it may be safely laid down that an order will be a judicial or quasi-judicial orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Police Regulations, 1915, which must now be held to be 'ultra vires' as infringing Article 311(1) cannot stand in the way of the petitioner. The rule must be held to be inoperative under Article 313 of the Constitution. That the petitioner's service is governed by the present Constitution of India admits of no doubt. See -- 'North West Frontier Province v. Suraj Narain Anand'. 75 Ind App 343 (PC). 31. Mr. A.K. Sen, the learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner cannot rely on his original appointment as after the partition of Bengal the old officers ceased to exist and the petitioner became an officer under the State of West Bengal. This argument is obviously based on a misapprehension as under Article 375 of the Constitution the old officers must be deemed to have continued even after partition of Bengal. 32. In my view the order of dismissal must be held to have been made by a person not competent to make it and was wholly without jurisdiction. The Order was in breach of the Constitution of India, Article 311(1) and in contravention of the Rules of 1936 (Clauses 8 and 9). In the circumstances, even if the Order of dismissal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
