- (1.)The petitioner was appointed as a Cadet Sub-Inspector of Police on 3-1-1949. He was the officer-in-charge of Balikuda Police Station in the district of Cuttack from 1957 to 1959. For certain misconduct committed during these years a disciplinary proceeding was started against him in 1962 while he was acting as the Court Sub-Inspector at Jajpur. The enquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Cuttack. Sarbasri R. K. Pariksha, M. Satpathi and S. C. Misra, Additional Superintendents of Police, conducted the enquiry respectively for the periods 21-4-1962 to 21-11-1962, 21-11-1962 fo 27-3-1963 and 27-3-1963 to 14-1-1964. Six charges had been framed. On 14-1-1964 Shri S. C. Misra IPS, Addl. Superintendent of Police, submitted his report of enquiry (Annexure II) wherein he held that charge No. VI was proved completely and charge No. IV partially. The petitioner was served with the notice (Annexure III) to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the force by Shri Damodar Chhotray, D. I. G. of Police, Central Range. He showed cause (Annexure IV). Shri Ghanashyam Das, D. I. G. of Police Central Range, by his order (Annexure J) dated 5-7-1966 passed the following order:
"As earlier observed by my predecessor the delinquent has bad record of service. He therefore deserves to be removed from the Force. I however given him a final warning and order that he should forfeit his next two increments for a period of two years. This will affect all his future increments. His conduct should be kept under watch and any suspicion on his conduct in future should be considered sufficient for his removal from the service. The above forfeiture of increments will have three Black marks value."

Petitioner did not challenge the punishment imposed on him in Annexure J. Shri S. K. Ghosh, Inspector-General of Police, reviewed the proceeding in exercise of his powers under Rule 853 of the Orissa Police Manual (hereinafter to be stated as the Manual). The petitioner was asked to show cause by the I. G. of Police by an order (Annexure K) dated 15-9-1966 as to why he should not be dismissed from the force. He showed cause. By the order (Annexure L) dated 3-3-1967 of the I. G. of Police the petitioner was dismissed from the force. The petitioner filed a memorial (Annexure O) before the Chief Minister, Orissa, for setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the I. G. of Police and for reinstating him in service. By Annexure P dated 10-3-1969 Government intimated the I. G. of Police that the memorial of the petitioner had been rejected. The writ application has been filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order of dismissal.

(2.)Mr. Rath for the petitioner advanced the following contentions:
(i) As the charge-sheet contained the proposed punishment of dismissal, the entire proceeding was vitiated and the impugned order of punishment is liable to be quashed;

(ii) No reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself against charge No. IV for the following reasons :

(a) Relevant documents were not supplied for cross-examination of P. Ws. 7 to 9.

(b) No opportunity was given to cross-examine P. Ws. 15 to 19. The prayer for cross-examining them was unjustifiably refused.

(c) The petitioner was not allowed to give all his defence evidence.

(iii) Even if the evidence of P. Ws. 10 and 11 is accepted in toto, charge No. VI is not established.

(iv) The I. G. of Police took the past conduct of the petitioner into consideration without giving notice thereof and the impugned punishment is liable to be quashed on that ground.

(v) The delinquent not having filed any appeal to the I. G. of Police against the order of punishment passed by the D. I. G. of Police, the I. G. of Police had no jurisdiction to review the departmental proceeding under Rule 853 of the Manual.

(vi) The order of the Government (Annexure P) is not a speaking order and is liable to be quashed. Apart from combating all the aforesaid contentions the opposite parties advanced the objections that even if charge No. IV failed on any ground, charge No. VI is sustainable and the impugned punishment cannot be interfered with. Each of these arguments requires close examination.

(3.)To appreciate the first two contentions it would be appropriate to extract charges IV and VI from the charge-sheet (Annexure A) drawn up by Shri J. Dharmaraj, D. I. G. of Police, Central Range, on 29-3-1962:
"S. I. Janardan Kar of Balikuda P. S. (now at Jajpur Court) is charged with grave misconduct and serious dereliction of duty in that: IV. He visited village Chandpura on 3-1-1959 in connection with the investigation of case No. 61 dated 14-12-1958 under Sections 143/379/447, I. P. C. after the C. I. had supervised the case on 23-12-1958 and ordered submission of Final report Mistake of law under Section 379, I. P. C, called the accused persons Pari Gochavat (P. W. 9) Jogi Gochhait (P. W. 8), Kina Gochhait, Muli Gochhait, Sidha Gochhait, Budhi Gochhait, Bhima Gochhait and others to his camp in the kuchery house of Jadumoni Behera of Balishai of Biri and demanded Rs. 50/- in cash, 2 fowls, 2 gounis of Biri and one bag of paddy husk on pain of their arrest and submission of charge-sheet in the case and realised Rs. 50/- the same day at the kuchery house. The other articles i. e. 2 fowls, 2 gounis of Biri and a bag of paddy husk were delivered to him by the accused persons at the P. S. early next morning. VI. In Case No. 53 dated 20-8-59 under Sections 448/426/379, I. P. C, instituted on the report of Akrura Barik of Sudkanthi against his villagers Dharmu Barik, Ani Dei and others when the complainant approached him at the P. S. on 23-8-1959 for submission of charge-sheet in the case, he demanded Rs. 200/- as a reward for the favour and realised Rs. 100/- in presence of one Dinabandhu Mohanty of the same village. He will show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from the Force or otherwise severely punished. Any representation that he may wish to make in regard to the above charges in the event of the charges being proved against him will be taken into consideration by the authority competent to award him the above punishments before passing final orders."