# State of U. P v. Deomati Upadhyaya - **Citation:** [1961] 1 S.C.R. 64 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1961 - **Bench:** P. B. Gajendbagadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, M. HIDAYA'rULLAH, K. C. Das Gupta, a.nd J. c. SHAH - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-u-p-v-deomati-upadhyaya-2205 - **Pages:** 8 ## Headnote Government Servant-Dismissal-Member of subordinate rank of police forces-Police officer committing offence-Departmental enquiry and dismissal-V a!idity-Dismissal from service without fresh shew cause notice-Legality-Police Act, 186t (V of 186t), ss. 29, 35-Government of India Act, 1935 (z5 rnrnent b ## Text State of U. P. v. Deomati Upadhyaya llidayatullah j. July I. 64 SUPREME COGRT REPORTS [1961] of Criminal Procedure in so fa.r a.a " tha.t section relates to s. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act" a.re intra vires a.nd do not offend Art. 14 of the Oon~titu tion. Tho order of the High Court acquitting the respondent is a.lso set a.side a.nd the order of the CourL of Sessions convicting the 11ccused (respondent) under s. 302 of the India.n Pena.I Codo and sentencing him to rnrnent but without avail. Consequ!'ntly the prcs!'nt suit was tiled by the appellant in FPbrua.ry 1949. The plaint as originally filed, iifter wirmting the facts relating tu the appellant's servic<>, merely stated that the charge uf misconduct was brought against the appellant. on account of enmity and that the departmental enquiry made hy the l:'uperintcndont of Police was arbitrary and not according to law, rules and regulations prescrihccl for tho same. Besides this vague general allc>gation, the only specific grievance made out by the appellant in the pl>Lint was that the Superintendent of Police had dismissed him w~thout recording his defenco evidence and without giving him an opportunity to produce thti same. Tho appellant amended the plaint later and added one more grievance, namely, that he had heen appointed by the Doputy Inspector General of Police and could only have hccn dismiHscd by him and not by the Superintendent of Police. As to the Departmental enquiry, certain further defects therein were pointed out besides the allegation already made that his defenco had not been taken and that he had not been given an opportunity to produce it. Thoso further defects were (i) that he was not permitted to engage counsel, (ii) that he was not allowed full opportunity to croas.- examine the prosecution witnesses, and (iii) that he was not asked by the enquiry officer to state what he had to say in answer to the charge against him and was not permitted to file a written.statement explaining the alleged incriminating circumstances against him. The suit was opposed on behalf of the Punjab Government and among otht>rs their main defence was that the enquiry we.a in accordance with the • ) - 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 67 Regulations and was not arbitrary. It was also denied that no opportunity had beeri given to the appellant to lead defence evidence or to cross-examine prosectition witnesses or to make his own statement in answer to the charge. It was admitted that permission was . . refused to engage a counsel; but it was finally averred _ that taking the enquiry a:s a whole there was no such defect in its _conduct as to invalidate it or call for interference by the courts. Three issues, all of a general nature, were framed · by the trial court, namely,_ 1. Whether. the plaintiff's dismissal is void, illegal, inoperative and wrongful and what is its effect? 2. Whether the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suit or to go into the <1uestion of the validity of the departmental enquiry ? 3. Whether the suit for a declaration lies and is competent and why ? It is unfortunate that the specific points raised by the appellant whatever they were were not made the ·subject-matter of specific ;ssues. However, tlie trial court came to the conclusion that the case of the appellant was governed by s. 240(3) of the Government India Act, 1935; and it was reinforced in this conclusion by the Police· Regulations which, according to it, provided for the same safeguards as were contained in s. 240(3). - - It .therefore held that as s. 240(3) had not been com plied with, t,he dismissal was yoid and iUegal. As to the other two issues relating to the· jurisdiction of - civil courts they were-depided in favour of the appellant. - _ - . _There was an appeal to the District Jndge by the Ptfnja.b Government. The District Judge' agreed with the conC!usions of the trial court on the applicability of s, 240(3) to the case of the appellant and further - referred to an amendment in the ·Police Regulations which- required that before an order of dismissal or reduction 'in rank is made, the officer to__ be punished shall be proquced before the _officer empowered to punish him and shall_ be informed of the _charges ' Bhagat Singh v. The State of J>unja~ Wanchoo ]. 11;60 lJh·1;:at S1n1;h v. The St~itc cf J)U11}U!1 W'co1clioo J. 68 SCPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] proved against him and called upon to show cause whv an order of dismissal or reduction in rank should nut" be passed. The District J udgo was conscious that this amendment in the Regulations was made in September 1946 long after the dismissal of the appellant and therefore would not apply to the appellant's case; but he overruled this contention on the ground that the rule was merely dodaratory of the law and only removed the ambiguity that might have arisen because of s. 243 of the Government of India Act. He therefore dismissNI the appeal. Then followed a second appeal by the Punjab Government to the High Court.. The High Court held that s. 240(3) did not apply to the case of the appellant and that s. 243 was the governing section. In consequence tho High Court further held that the appellant was not Pntitled to the protection of s. 240(3) and as the amendment to tho Police Regulations which brought in the substance of s. 240(3) therein was made after the dismissal of the· appellant, he could not take advantago of it. As to tho enquiry, the High Court held that though there might ha.vo been minor procedural defects in tho enquiry it was on the whole substantially in accordance with tho Regulations and principle" of natural justice . and could not therefore be held to be invalid. The High Court pointed out tha.t there was no serious contravention of the Regulations and the witnesses who had appeared wem cross-examined by tho appellant who was also ca.lied upon to produce his defence within 48 hours. He however did not choose to do so a.nd wanted a postponement which was refused and thereafter the Superintend