http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: SHRI NAJAMAL HUSSAIN MEHADI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/08/1996

BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   247        1996 SCALE  (5)856

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T PATTANAIK, J.      Leave granted.      Though this appeal is directed against the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Bombay dated 24.3.1994, wherein 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 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 had also issued  notice to  the State of Maharashtra to 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 Kurla  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 the appellant had been  transferred  to  various  Police  Stations  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 Arun Shetty was 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

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  Arun 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  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 31.12.1993. The appellant apprehending  dispossession   from  the   quarter  filed  an application   before    Central   Administrative    Tribunal challenging the  order on  the ground  of  mala  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  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 Appellate 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 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  cause stating therein that after the transfer 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 1.3.1999 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 in fact  one Shri  Bobde  had  submitted  a  report  on  the complaint  lodged   by  Shri   Arun  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 mala fides and any conspiracy between him and the hotel owner.      Shri Laxmikant  Parvati Tike  in  his  show  cause  had stated that he had also taken action against the hotel owner for keeping the hotel open beyond the stipulated time but on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

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 keeping  hotel open beyond 0.30 hours on 26.10.1991.  The  aforesaid  complaint  was  accompanied  by medical reports  of Municipal  Hospital  stating  that  said Daulat had  suffered mentel  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 he was incharge of Zone V  from 5th  June 1993  to October  10, 1993 and during that period  the complaint lodged by Arun 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 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.  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 only 9      times were  charged by  the  P.S.I.      Mehandi and  the rest 46 times were      charged by  other officers of Nehru      Nagar Police  Station. 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 misconceived so far as Shri Bobde is concerned.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

    Shri  K.  Ramachandran,  the  Deputy  Commissioner  CID (Intelligence) who  was Deputy  Commissioner 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  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 no where in the picture  as he  left Zone 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 and was forced to leave his  quarter. The transfer of the appellant from Kurla is nothing  but a  mala 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  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 appellant 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  difficult  to comprehend that  the senior  police officer  had any  animus against the  appellant. The  learned Additional Solicitor or 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.      Shri Agrawala,  learned counsel  appearing for Mr. Tike and Shri  Ramachandran, on  the other  hand, argued that the entire allegations made 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 affidavits filed both by Shri Tike and Shri

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

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 mala 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  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 documents 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  keen  instrumental  in making false  and frivolous  report  against  the  appellant 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 way in pursuing the appellant but he has tried to support Shri Tike which has  emboldened the senior inspector Shri Tike to make false and  frivolous report  against the appellant. The mere fact that  Shri Tike  had also challenged 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  merely  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  was  found drinking in  the hotel and, therefore, the appellant brought the Manager Shri Daulat to tho 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  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 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 tehri  Mehedi at any point of time had  misbehaved with  Shri Daulat,  the Manager  of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

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 lack 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 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 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 on 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 Shri  Daulat  had  been  produced before the  Magistrate no  complaint had been made by him of any  ill-treatment.   Yet  on   the  basis  of  the  medical certificate furnished  to  Shri  Daulat  by  the  doctor  on 3.11.91 was  relied upon by Shri tike to hold that appellant misbehaved  with   Shri  Daulat.   The  aforesaid  materials unhesitatingly indicate  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 owner 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  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  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  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  understand how  a senior  police officer  like Shri Ramachandran could  accept the  report of  Shri Tike without verifying the  correctness of  the facts  mentioned therein.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

Even the  Appellate Authority,  namely, the State Government has found  while disposing the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of punishment -      "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  Tulsi, learned  Additional Solicitor  General that the conduct of the appellant 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 nonexistent  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 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 owner  Shri Shetty and/or the Manager Shri Daulat. The conduct of  the Deputy  Commissioner Shri  Ramachandran also cannot but  be depreciated 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.  It   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 wind that he would not have relied upon the false and frivolous report submitted by  Shri Tike.  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  organization   who  would   amend  their behaviour.      Notwithstanding    our    aforesaid    direction    and observations,  so   far  as   the  role  of  Shri  Tike  and Ramachandran is  concerned 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

further  harassment.  We  are  not  inclined  to  issue  any direction to  the State  to allow the appellant to re-occupy the quarter  at Kurla  since some  other police  officer now posted at Kurla 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 send a copy of the order  to the  Chief  Secretary  to  the  Government  of Maharashtra  and   Commissioner  of   Police,   Bombay   for appropriate action at their end.