Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)Bombay Police Act, 1951
Abdul Hakim Ahmad vs Dist. Supdt. Of Police And Ors. on 31 January, 1977
The criminal court had no occasion to pronounce upon such conduct and to decide whether such a person can be permitted to continue in the police department. That was the function entirely of the departmental authorities which they have performed in the present case. They would have failed in their duty if they had ignored such conduct of the petitioner and had refused to look into the matter departmentally. The ration of the decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Hakim (supra), therefore, cannot apply to the facts of the present case. In fact, the very para of the circular dated 25th July, 1968 extracted earlier indicates that if the departmental proceedings are based on the allegations which were not examined by the criminal court, it would be open to the departmental authority to initiate proceedings in connection with these allegations. The said circular as seen earlier has been referred to, with approval, by M. P. Thakkar, J, in the aforesaid decision. The present is a case which directly fits in with that part of the said circular. It was, therefore, open to the departmental authorities to take proper steps against the petitioner departmentally and to punish him in accordance with law. The first contention of Mr. Trivedi, therefore, stands repelled.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 25 in Bombay Police Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
1