SH. NAJAMAL HUSSAIN MEHADI

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

AUGUST 9, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Service Law :

Transfei-Police Officer booked hotel manager for running hotel beyond prescribed time-Senior Inspector filed false and frivolous report regarding ill-treatment of hotel manager by Police Officer-Aim of report was to harass Police Officei-Police Officer was also prohibited from checking hotel in question in order to shield hotel ownei-Repo1t of Senior Inspector neither checked nor verified by Deputy Commissioner of Police-Police Df- D ficer was transferred and dispossessed of his residential quartei-Held: transfer order caused mental agony, harassment and humiliation to the Police

Officer-Conduct of Deputy Commissioner of Police and Senior Inspector condemned and ordered to be entered in their respective character rol/s--H ow ever, in the circumstances of the case order of transfer of Police

E Officer not inteifered with.

The appellant as Police Inspector was attached to a Police Station and was allotted a residential quarter. Though the appellant had been transferred many times to various Police Stations within the city but bis residential quarter remained the same in accordance with the Government F policy for allotment of quarters. The proprietor of a hotel was indulging in several illegal acts in Oagrant violation of the rules. Having high connections with senior police officers no action was being taken against the hotel. While the appellant was discharging his official duties as inspector of Police, he received certain complaints against the hotel and raided the hotel premises and had also recommended for cancellation of the G licence of the said hotel. The Manager of the Hotel then lodged a complaint against the appellant making several false allegations and on the asis of the said complaint the appellant was fined, which ultimately was set aside by the State Government on an application being filed by the appellant. To prevent the appellant from discharging his official duties an order was H passed by the Senior Inspector of Police that the hotel in question will be 496

N.H.MEHAD!v. STATE 497

checked only by the officers above the rank of Police Inspector. The A Manager of the hotel again made a complaint against the appellant which was referred to Lokaynkta. The Lokaynkta conducted an ex-parte enquiry and after recording the statemets of the senior Inspector of Police and the Assistant Commissioner of Police who were against the appellant, a report was given by Lokaynkta on the basis of which the apl'ellant was B transferred to a different Police Station. The appellant submitted his representation against the aforesaid transfer but was of no consequence.

The Assistant Commissioner of Police subsequently asked the Appellant to vacate his residential quarter and also imposed a fine of Rs. 100. The appellant filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the aforesaid order on the ground of malafides and it was C dismissed. Being aggrieved the appellant had filed the present appeal.

During the pendency of the application before the Central Administrative Tribunal the appellant filed an application against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Police imposing a fine of Rs. 100 before D the State Government. The Appellate Authority disposed of the application stating that the Senior Inspector of Police was biased and prejudiced against the appellant and submitted a false report against the appellant.

This order of the Appellant Authority was passed subsequent to the order of the Tribunal.

This court on being satisfied that a straight forward police officer was being harassed by his superior officers at the behest of the proprietor of a hotel issued notice to the Senior Inspector as well as to the Deputy Commissioner of Police to show cause as to why appropriate strictures should not be made against them. Pursuant to the notice issued by this court the Senior Inspector of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police filed their replies. The Senior Inspector of Police denied the allegation against him for shielding the hotel Manager and he also recommended the appellant for S awards. The Deputy Commissioner of Police also denied the allegation against him.

On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the appe11ant was obsessed with the feeling that every senior police officer had been trying

to protect the hotel owner and in the process the appellant had been harassed; that the fact that the appellant was given 5 awards on the recommendation of the Senior Inspector of Police showed that he had no H

A animus against the appellant; and that the allegation made by the appel lant against the Senior Inspector of Police was the out-come of an abnor mal mind of the appellant; and that no strictures should be made against these police officers.

Disposing of the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The Senior Inspector of Police has been instrumental in making false and frivolous report against the appellant which ultimately became the basis for initiation of departmental proceeding wherein appel lant w-as punished. rt is of course true that in the meantime the State Government had set aside the orders of all the departmental authorities and the punishment awarded against the appellant. The Deputy Commis sioner of Police though is not directly involved in any way in pursuing the appellant but he has tried to support the Senior Inspector of Police which has emboldened the senior Inspector to make false and frivolous report D against the appellant. The mere fact that the Senior Inspector had also challaned the hotel owner on earlier occasion, cannot be a ground to come to a conclusion that he had not supported the hotel owner as against the appellant. Similarly, merely because of the Senior Inspector's recommeu dation appellant has been rewarded on some occasions, it cannot be said E that in the instant case there was no reason for the senior Inspector to go against the appellant. The entire episode emanated from the action of the appellant on the fateful day when it was found that the hotel was still open contrary to the rules. A customer was found drinking in the hotel and, therefore, the appellant brought the Manager to the Police Station and the

F action taken by the appellant against the hotel owner for keeping the hotel open beyond the prescribed time, is wholly justified as has been found by the Senior Inspector himself in his report. (507-F'.H; 508AB)

1.2. But unfortunately in the aforesaid report the Senior Inspector had also stated that the treatment given to the Manager at the Police G Station was disgraceful to the police department and according to him the appellant needs to amend his conduct with public. The aforesaid con clusion of the Senior Inspector is supposed to have been based upon the statements recorded by him of different police officers on receiving a complaint from the hotel manager. Not a word is found in any of those H statements which could even remotely support the ultimate conclusion of

N.H.MEHAD!v. STATE 499

the Senior Inspector that the appellant at any point of time had mis- A behaved with the Manager of the Hotel at the Police Station. On the other hand, records clearly indicate that the appellant after bringing the hotel Manager to the Police Station and putting him in lock up left the police station immediately. The Senior Inspector also in his report indicated that hotel manager is an educated person and hails from a respectable family B and therefore, the treatment given to him by the appellant was horrible.

There were not supporting materials on the basis of which one could come to the aforesaid conclusion. Even in the show cause filed by the Senior Inspector in this Court he has not indicated what were the materials available to him on the basis of which he could reasonably come to the aforesaid conclusion. The so-called complaint mad~ by the hotel owner is C also a false one inasmuch as the statements recorded by the Senior Inspector in the course of enquiry reveal that the hotel manager was called upon to go on bail by furnishing the necessary bail bond but he refused to go with the sole object of harassing the appellant who had brought him from the hotel and put him in the lock up. It may be noticed that when the D hotel manager had been produced before the Magistrate no complaint had been made by him of any ill-treatment. Medical certificate furnished to the hotel manager by the doctor was relied upon by the Senior Inspector to hold that the appellant misbehaved with the hotel manager. The aforesaid materials unhesitatingly indicate that the hotel manager while inside the police lock up conceived the idea of harassing a sincere and honest officer E like the appellant and the Senior Police Inspector in promoting the said object of the hotel owner submitted a false and frivolous report about the so-called ill treatment of the hotel manager at the Police Station by the appellant which not only ultimately became the source of great mental agony and harassment to the appellant but also was responsible for p shifting of the appellant from the Police Station and ultimately dispossession from his quarter. (508-C-H; 509-B-C]

2.1. When a sincere and honest police officer is harassed by the senior officers like the Senior Inspector at the behest of a wealthy hotel G owner, one can well imagine the mental torture and agony of the concerned officer. That the Senior Inspector wanted to shield the restaurant owner is apparent from the order passed by him prohibiting the Inspector of Police like the appellant from checking the restaurant and only permitting the senior inspector of police to check the restaurant even if the hotel contravened the provisions of law and indulged in nefarious activities. No H

A justifiable reason has been advanced for passing such order and that it was purposely passed to prevent the appellant from discharging his lawful duties in the matter of checking the hotel.(509-DE]

2.2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police who was the Senior Police Officer did not check the correctness of the report submitted by the Senior Inspector and on the other hand blindly accepted the same and pursued the appellant by initiating departmental proceedings. The materials on record show that the Deputy Commissioner of Police joined hands with the Senior Inspector and supported action taken by the Senior Inspector against the appellant which ultimately resulted in serious harassment to the appellant. It is difficult to understand how a senior police officer like the Deputy Commissioner of Police could accept the report of the Senior Inspector without verifying the correctness of the facts mentioned therein.

Even the Appellate Authority namely, the State Government has found while disposing the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of D punishment that the Senior Inspector has played an active role in supporting the hotel owner and has shielded the person who has no regard for law and submitted a false report against the appellant who has taken legal action. (509-F-H, 510-A]

E 2.3. It is not possible to accept the contention that the appellant exhibited a state of mind that he is the only honest officer and all other officers around him are either out to harassing or supporting and shielding the illegaf activities of the hotel owner. There is no doubt that the Senior Inspector has pursued the appellant, a junior officer and by submitting a false report on nonexistant material has caused enough harass- F ment to the appellant. The conduct of the Senior Police inspector is highly reprehensible and deserves condemnation particularly when the appellant was trying to enforce the law but the Senior Inspector has tried to malign him of misbehaviour with the Manger of the hotel inside the police lock up which obviously must have been at the behest of the hotel owner and/or the Manager. The conduct of the .Deputy Commissioner of Police also G cannot but be deprecatd in view of his approach to shield and support the report of the Senior Inspector without examining the relevant material and initiating the departmental proceeding. A departmental proceeding for a government servant bring untold misery and in the case in hand not only the government servant concerned was fined and thereby humiliated H in the eyes his colleagues, friends and relations which he could vindicate

N.H. MEHADiv. STATE[PATIANAIK, J.] 501

only when the Government set aside the same in appeal. It is not expected A from a Deputy Commissioner of Police to blindly accept the report of the Senior Inspector without even examining the statements recorded by the Senior Inspector in course of enquiry and had he examined the same he would not have relied upon the false and frivolous report submitted by the Senior Inspector of Police. In the circumstances the role of the Senior Inspector of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police for having illegally pursued an honest police oflicer to protect the interest of a wealthy hotelier deserves to be condemned. The condemnation of these two police ofticers should be entered in their respective character-rolls which will be

a message to other errant police ofticers in the organisation who wonld amend their behaviour. [510-B-H] c

3. However, in the circumstances of the case intederence with the order of the Administrative Tribunal is not called for since the order of the transfer of the appellant, 3 years have passed in the meantime, Besides the transfer in question is within the city itself and not to any other place in the State. [511-A-B] D

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10231 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Otder dated 24.3.94 of the Maharashtra E Administrative Tribunal, Bombay in Original Application No. 63 of 1994.

R.S. Hedge and P.P. Singh for the Appellant.

K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, S.M. Jadhav, Mukul Mudgal, Vikas Pahwa, D.M. Nargolkar, and E.C. Agarwala for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :

PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted.

Though this appeal is directed against the order of the Administra- G tive Tribunal, Bombay dated 24.3.1994, where the legality of the Government order transferring the appellant from one place to the other within Bombay and the consequential direction to vacate the quarter is under challenge, on going through the materials on record this Court on being satisfied that a straight forward police officer was being harassed by his H

A superior officers at the behest of the proprietor of a hotel and bar issued notice to the Senior Inspectors Shri Tike and Shri Raghuvanshi, as well as to the Deputy Commissioner of Police Shri K. Ramachandran to file their show cause as to why appropriate strictures should not be made against them. The Court has also issued notice to the State of Maharashtra to

B indicate why government action of imposing penalty and punishment on the appellant should not be considered to be illegal.

The appellant's case in nutshell is that as Police Inspector he was attached to Koria Police Station in 1976 and had been allotted a quarter in Kurla West in Block No. 2 in the year 1979. Between 1979 to 1990 though C the appellant had been transferred to various Police Station within Bombay but his residential quarter remained the same in accordance with the government policy for allotment of quarters. In 1990 he was posted at Nehru Nagar Police Station, Kurla East and near the Police Station lies Hotel Naina. The said hotel and its proprietor Shri Arnn Shetty was D indulging in several illegal acts in flagrant violation of the rules. Having high connections with senior Police Officers no action was being taken against the hotel. While the appellant was discharging his official duties as Inspector of Police Nehru Nagar Police Station, Kurla, he received certain complaints against the hotel and raided the hotel premises and had also

recommended for cancellation of the licence of the said hotel. The Manager of the Hotel then lodged a complaint against the appellant making several false allegations and on the basis of the said complaint the appellant was fined, which of course, ultimately was set aside by the Maharashtra Government on an application being filed by the appellant.

To prevent the appellant from discharging his official duties an order was passed by the Senior Inspector of Police Shri Tike that the hotel in question will be checked only by the officers above the rank of Police Inspector. Shri Arnn Shetty, the Manager of the hotel again made a complaint against the appellant in July 1993 which complaint was referred to Lokayukta. Said Lokayukta conducted an ex-parte enquiry and after recording the statements of the senior Inspector of Police and the Assistant Commissioner of G Police who were against the appellant, a report was given by Lokayukta on the basis of which the appellant was transferred from Kurla to Bhoyawala Police Station. The appellant submitted his representation against the aforesaid transfer but was of no consequence. On 28.12.1993 the Assistant Commissioner of Police asked the appellant to vacate his quarter by H 31.12.1993. The appellant apprehending dispossession from the quarter

N.H. MEHADI v. STATE[PATIANAIK, J.) 503

filed an application before Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the A order on the ground of ma/a fides. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 24.3.1994 dismissed the same and thus this Appeal by Special Leave.

In the meantime, the appellant had filed an application against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Police imposing a fine of Rs. 100 and that appeal was disposed of by the State Government by order dated 23.6.1994. In the aforesaid order the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that there is substance in the points raised by the applicant that the charge put up against him is with biased and prejudiced mind and in

c this matter the then Senior Inspector of Police, Nehru Nagar Police Station Shri Tike had played an active role for supporting the hotel owner. The Appellant Authority further held in the aforesaid order that though Shri Tike was having note of previous record of the hotel that Nehru Nagar Police Station had taken action against hotel for 55 times and vigilance branch had also raided the hotel on 27.4.1991 for illegal business still he shielded the person who has no regards for law and submitted a false D report against the officer who had taken action. This order of the Appellate Authority was passed subsequent to the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 24.3.1994.

Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court Shri Vijaysinh Balaramsinh Raghuvanshi filed his show case stating therein that after the transfer E of Shri Tike he took over as Senior Inspector of Police, Nehru Nagar Police Station. He was the Senior Inspector of Nehru Nagar Police Station from 1.3.1992 to 30.8.1994 and during this period as many as 13 cases had been filed against the Naina Hotel owner. It was further stated that he had not submitted any report to Hon'ble Lokayukta as alleged by the appellant and F in fact one Shri Bobde had submitted a report on the complaint lodged by Shri Arnn Shetty and Lokayukta recommended to the Police Commissioner to shift the appellant from the premises to control and minimise the conflict between the hotel owner and the appellant. He also denied the allegations of the ma/a fides and any conspiracy between him and the hotel owner.

Shri Laxmikant Parvati Tike in his show cause had stated that he harl also taken action against the hotel owner for keeping the hotel open beyo"°d

the stipulated time but on 27.10.1991 one KJA Padmanabh made a complaint against the appellant for his misbehaviour and ill-treatment in connection with arrest and detention of Shri Daulat, the Hotel Manager, for H

A keeping hotel open beyond 030 hours on 26.10.1991. The aforesaid complaint was accompanied by medical reports of Municipal Hospital stating tat said Daulat had suffered mental harassment and nervous break down.

It was also alleged in the complaint that the Manager was not released on bail by the officer concerned i.e. the appellant despite the fact they were

prepared to deposit bail amount for offence of keeping open Hotel beyond certain time. The Senior Inspector, therefore, recorded the statement of all concerned and submitted his report to his superiors and he felt that the appellant had exceeded his function and authority beyond required limits.

It was also stated by Shri Tike in his affidavit that out of the medical report one could see the seriousness of the treatment meted out to the accused.

Shri Tike also denied the allegation against him for shielding the hotel Manager and indicated the action taken by him against the Manager from time to time. He also denied the allegation that Shri Arun Shetty, the owner of the Hotel Naina, was very friendly with him. Shri Bobde, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Security) has filed his affidavit stating therein that D he was incharge of Zone V from 5th June 1993 to October 10, 1993 and during that period the complaint lodged by Arnn Shetty against the appellant was pending before the Hon'ble Lokayukta. The Commissioner of police discussed the case with him and assigned the case to him to attend the court on behalf of the Commissioner. The report which he had given

before the Lokayukta merely stated facts and he had not recommended any action against the appellant. On the contrary, he had given a report which was in favour of the appellant Shri Mehedi. So far as shifting of the appellant from his quarter, at Kurla to a quarter at Central Bombay is concerned, Shri Bobde stated that to avoid any dispute between Shri 'Mehedi and the hotel owner and since Shri Mehedi had been transferred from Kurla, he had suggested that Shri Mehedi should leave the quarter at Kurla. In fact the report of said Shri Bobde dated 28.8.93 to Hon'ble Lokayukta, Maharashtra, which has been annexed as Annexure 'B' to his show cause clearly indicates that he supported the action of Shri Mehedi and further indicated that the hotel owner was in the habit of making applications against the Police Officer with whom he was having grudges.

G It will be appropriate at this stage to extract a portion from the aforesaid report of Shri Bobde:

"It is seen from the application made by the applicant from time to time that the hotel was charged in all 55 times, out of which H only 9 times were charged by the P.S.l. Mehandi and the rest 46

N.H. MEHADI v. STATE (P ATIANAIK, J.) 505

times were charged by other officers of Nehru Nagar Police Sta- A tion. Hence there is no need for the applicant to have grudge against P.S.I. Mehedi.

It appears that the applicant is in habit of making applications against the Police Officer with whom he is having grudges."

It is thus clear that Shri Bobde at no point of time had even suggested any action against Shri Mehandi and the apprehension of Shri Mehandi is wholly mis-conceived so far as Shri Bobde is concerned.

Shri K. Ramachandran, the Deputy Commissioner CID (Intelligence) who was Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone V, Bombay at the relevant point of time in his affidavit denied allegations made by the appellant in this Court. He further indicated that on the recommendation of Mr. Tike, the then Senior Police Inspector, he had sanctioned 5 rewards

to the appellant from 30th August, 1991 to 9th September, 1991. He had D also stated in his affidavit that record of the appellant revealed that he had been punished 6 times and was reprimanded once for disobeying the senior officers and now he is posing to be a crusader against illegality. It was also stated that the enquiry conducted by Shri Tike clearly revealed the ill-treatment given by the appellant to Mr. Daulat and Mr. Padmanabha which lead him to believe that the appellant had really ill-treated Shri Daulat and Shri Padmanabha and therefore, he issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why fine should not be imposed upon him and after considering the appellant's reply and finding the same to be unsatisfactory and relying upon

Mr. Tike's report he awarded the punishment in question. So far as the episode culminating in the report of Lokayukta is concerned, Shri Ramachandran stated that he was nowhere in the picture as he left Zone F

V on 5th December 1992 and the complaint of the hotel owner to the Lokayukta, was made on 21.3.1993. According to him there was no reason either for him or for Mr. Tike to shield the hotel owner and infact Shri Tike challenged the hotel owner on several occasions. The allegation of any G connivance between him and the hotel owner was denied. Shri Tike has filed an additional affidavit indicating the circumstances under which he made a report against the appellant for ill-treating Mr. Daulat, the accused, while appreciating his actions of challenging hotel Naina when it was found that the hotel owner was violating the law. Shri Raghuvanshi also has filed an additional affidavit stating therein that he had no role to play either in H

A making a report relating to the incidence of October 27, 1979 or any other incidence against the appellant nor was he even concerned with the fine of Rs. 5,000 or any other fine imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police against Shri Mehedi. The appellant has filed a Rejoinder Affidavit to all the Affidavits filed by different police officers.

Shri Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the records of the case and different affidavits would unequivocally indicate that an honest and sincere officer has been harassed by the superior police officers as he took action against hotel Naina and in order to shield the hotel owner the appellant was not only shifted from the Police Station but was also erroneously fined in the departmental proceedings and was forced to leave his quarter. The transfer of the appellant from Kurla is nothing but a ma/a fide action on the part of the Appellate Authority and the direction by the Authority to the appellant to vacate his quarter at Kurla is the outcome of such malice and the Tribunal, therefore, committed gross error in dismissing the application. The learned counsel also urged D that the findings of the Appellate Authority, namely, the State Government while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of punishment unequivocally vindicates the stand of the appellant and in no uncertain term it has been found that the senior officers have shielded the illegal acts

of the hotel owner and have imposed the punishment on the appellant with a biased mind. In the circumstances the learned counsel urged that the Court should issue strictures against those police officers.

Shri KTS Tulsi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the State of Maharashtra, on the other hand submitted, that the records would reveal that the appellanr had been obsessed with the feeling that every senior police officer has been trying to protect the hotel owner and in the process the appellant has been harassed. According to Mr. Tulsi when many police officers like Shri Tike recommended in favour of the appellant on the basis of which the appellant was given 5 awards it is Jifficult to comprehend that the senior police officer had any animus G against the appellant. The learned Additional Solicitor General however, fairly stated that any direction the Court thinks fit and proper in the circumstances of the case can be given in the matter of allotment of quarter and the government would try to accommodate the appellant as far as possible.

H Shri Agrawala, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Tike and Shri

N.H. MEHAD!v. STATE[PATTANAIK, J.] 507

Ramachandran, on the other hand, argued that the entire allegations made A by the appellant against his clients are out-come of an abnormal mind and according to him the appellant thinks himself to be the only honest officer while rest of the world around him are either corrupt or are trying to shield the hotel owner and in the process the appellant has been harassed. Shri Agrawala, learned counsel took us through affida\its filed both by Shri Tike and Shri Ramachandran and urged that the material on record only reveals an honest assessment of situation and, therefore, a senior officer Shri Tike thought that it was not proper on the part of the appellant to misbehave or illtreat the hotel Manager while in Police lock-up. According to Shri Agrawala neither this conclusion is said to be ma/a fide nor can it be said that senior officer shielded the hotel owner. According to Shri Agrawala the appellant is taking advantage of the findings of the Appellate Authority but the said findings were not known to either Shri Tike or Shri Ramachandran and, therefore, no steps have been taken by them in this regard. The learned counsel urged that in the facts and circumstances of

the case no strictures from this Court is called for as against the two police D officers particularly when they themselves have booked the hotel owner on several occasions as indicated in different annexures and affidavits.

After considering the rival submissions and after going through the affidavits of different police officers as well as all other connected and relevant docun1ents on record, we have no doubt in our mind that Shri Bobde and Shri Raghuvanshi have not acted either against the appellant nor have done anything which could give any impression of shielding the owner of the hotel Naina. At the same time we have no hesitation to come

to the conclusion that Shri Tike, the senior inspector of police has been instrumental in making false and frivolous report against the appellant F which ultimately became the basis for initiation of departmental proceeding wherein appellant was punished. It is of course true that in the meantime the State Government had set aside the orders of all the departmental authorities and the punishment awarded against the appellant. Shri Ramachandran though is not directly involved in any ay in pursuing the G appellant but he has tried to support Shri Tike which has emboldened the senior inspector Shri Tike lo make false and frivolous report against the appellant. The mere fact that Shri Tike had also challaned the hotel owner on earlier occasions, cannot be a ground to come to a conclusion that he had not supported the hotel owner as against the appellant. Similarly H

A merey because of Shri Tike's recommendation appellant has been rewarded on some occasions, it cannot be said that in the instant case there was no reason for Shri Tike to go against the appellant. The entire episode emanated from the action of the appellant on 27.10.91 at 1.15 hrs. when it was found that hotel Naina was still open contrary to the rules. A customer B was found drinking in the hotel and, therefore, the appellant brought the Manager Shri Daulat to the Police Station and the action taken by Shri Mehedi - appellant against the hotel owner for keeping the hotel open beyond the prescribed time is wholly justified as has been found not only by Shri Bobde and Shri Raghuvanshi but also by Shri Tike himself in his c report dated 21.11.1991. But unfortunately Shri Tike in his report dated 21.11.1991 also stated that the treatment given to the Manager at the Police Station was disgraceful to the police department and according to him Shri Mehedi needs to amend his conduct with public. The aforesaid conclusion of Shri Tike is supposed to have been based upon the statements recorded D by him of different police officers on receiving a complaint from the hotel Manager Shri Daulat. We have. carefully considered the statements recorded and to our utter surprise we could not find a word in any of those statements which could even remotely support the ultimate conclusion of Shri Tike that Shri Mehedi at any point of time had misbehaved with Shri

Daulat, the Manager of the Hotel at the Police Station. On the other hand, records clearly indicate that Shri Mehedi after bringing the hotel Manager Shri Daulat to the Police Station and putting him in lock up left the Police Station immediately. Shri Tike also in his report indicated that hotel Manager Shri Daulat is an educated person and hails from a respectable family and, therefore, the treatment given to him by PSI Shri Mehedi was horrible. Inspite of our best efforts to find any supporting materials on the basis of which a man could come to the conclusion we are unable to find any such material. Even in the show cause filed by Shri Tike in this Court he has not indicated what were the materials available to him on the basis of which he could reasonably . come to the aforesaid conclusion. The G so-called complaint made by the hotel owner Shri Shetty is also a false one in as much as the statements recorded by Shri Tike in the course of enquiry reveal that Shri Daulat was called upon to go on bail by furnishing the necessary bail bond but he refused to go with the sole object of harassing the appellant who had brought him from the hotel and put him in the lock H up. It may be noticed that when Shri Daulat had been produced before the

N.H. MEHADI v. STATE [PATTANAIK, J.j 509

Magistrate no complaint had been made by him of any ill-treatment. Yet A on the basis of the medical certificate furnished to Shri Daulat by the doctor on 3.1.91 was relied upon by Shri Tike to hold that appellant misbehaved with Shri Daulat. The aforesaid materials unhesitatingly indi cate that Shri Daulat while inside the police lock up during the night of 27th October, 1991 conceived the idea of harassing a sincere and honest officer like the appellant and Shri Tike the Senior Police Inspector in promoting the said object of the hotel ov.ner submitted a false and frivolous report about the so called ill treatment of Shri Daulat at the Police Station by the appellant which not only ultimately became the source of great mental agony and harassment to the appellant but also was responsible for shifting of the appellant from the Police Station and ultimately dispossession from his quarter at Kurla and the entire family including school going children suffered miserably. When a sincere and honest police officer is harassed by the senior officers like Shri Tike at the behest of a wealthy hotel owner, one can well imagine the mental torture and agony of the D concerned officer. That Shri Tike wanted to shield the restaurant owner is apparent from the order passed by him on 28.10.91 prohibiting the Inspec tor of Police like the appellant from checking the restaurant and only permitting the Senior Inspector of Police to check the restaurant even if the hotel contravened the provisions of law and indulged in nefarious activities. No justifiable reason has been advanced for passing such order, and to us it appears that it was purposely passed to prevent the appellant from discharging his lawful duties in the matter of checking the hotel. Shri Ramachandran who was the Senior Police Officer did not check the correctness of the report submitted by Shri Tike and on the other hand blindly accepted the same and pursued the appellant by initiating departmental proceedings. The materials on record pursuade us to accept

the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that Shri Ramachandran, the Deputy Commissioner of Police joined hands with Shri Tike and supported action taken by Shri Tike against the appellant which ultimately resulted in serious harassment to the appellant. We really fail to G und'erstand how a senior police officer like Shri Ramachandran could accept the report of Shri Tike without verifying the correctness of the facts mentioned therein. Even the Appellate Authority, namely, the State Government has found while disposing the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of punishment • H

A "the then Senior Inspector of Police, Nehru Nagar Police Station,

Shri Tike has played an active role for supporting the hotel owner and has shielded the person who has no regard for law and submitted a false report against the officer (present appellant) who has taken the legal action."

In the facts and circumstances of the present case we are not in a position to sustain the arguments advanced by Shri KTS Tutsi, learned Additional Solicitor General that the conduct of the appdlant exhibits a state of mind of the appellant himself that he is the only honest officer and all other officers around him are either out to harassing or supporting and shielding the illegal activities of the hotel owner. On going through the entire materials on record we have no doubt in our mind that Shri Tike has pursued the appellant, a junior officer and by submitting a false report on non-existant material has caused enough harassment to the appellant.

The conduct of the Senior . Police Inspector Shri Tike is highly reprehensible and we cannot but condemn the same particularly when we find that D the appellant was trying to enforce the law but Shri Tike has tried to malign him of misbehaviour with the Manager of the hotel inside the police lock up which obviously must have been at the behest of the hotel ov.ner Shri Shetty and/or the Manager Shri Daulat. The conduct of the Deputy Commissioner Shri Ramachandran also cannot but be depricated in view of his

approach to shield and support the report of Shri Tike without examining the relevant material and initiating the departmental proceeding. A departmental proceeding for a government servant brings untold misery, and in the case in hand not only the servant concerned was fined and thereby humiliated in the eyes of his colleagues, friends and relations which he could vindicate only when the Government set aside the same in appeal.

In is not expected from a Deputy Commissioner of Police like Shri Ramachandran to blindly accept the report of Shri Tike without even examining the statements recorded by Shri Tike in course of enquiry and had he examined the same, we have no doubt in our mind that he would not have relied upon the false and frivolous report submitted by Shri Tike.

G In the circumstances though we exonerate Shri Bobde and Shri Raghuvanshi but we condemn the role of Shri Tike and Shri Ramachandran for having illegally pursued an honest police officer to protect the interest of a wealthy hotelier. Our condemnation of these two police officers should be entered in their respective Character-rolls which will be a message to other errant police officers in the organisation who would amend their H behaviour.

N.H.MEHAD!v.STATE[PATTANAIK, J.] 511

Notwithstanding our aforesaid directions and observations, so far as A the role of Shri Tike and Ramachandran is concerned, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the Administrative Tribunal since the order of transfer of the appellant from Kurla was in 1993 and 3 years have passed in the meantime. Besides the transfer in question is within the Bombay city itself and not to any other place in the State of Maharashtra.

While we decline to interfere with the order of transfer of the appellant, we would recommend the Government of Maharashtra to provide a residential quarter to the appellant near the place of his posting so that he

can discharge his duties as a police officer faithfully and sincerely and his family members will not be put to any further harassment. We are not inclined to issue any direction to the State to allow the appellant to C re-occupy the quarter at Kurla since some other police officer now posted at Koria will be occupying the same and it will cause a serious dislocation.

With these observations and directions the appeal is disposed of and the Registry is directed to sent a copy of the order to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra and Commissioner of Police, Bombay D for appropriate action at their end.

v.s.s.

Appeal disposed of.