VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

630 DECISION - 306
appeal. When two views are possible, the Court will decline
to interfere.
Ikramuddin Ahmed Borah vs. Supdt. of Police, Darrang,
1988(6) SLR SC 104
The appellant, a Sub-Inspector of Police in Assam State,
was dismissed by the Superintendent of Police by order dated 29-1-
73 without compliance with the requirements of Art. 311(2) of the
Constitution, on the ground that it was a case to which the provisions
of clause (b) of the second proviso to Art. 311(2) of the Constitution
were attracted. A departmental appeal and a petition to the Gowahati
High Court were dismissed.
The Supreme Court observed that the letter dated 7-7-67 of
the Deputy Inspector General of Police merely informed the appellant
that he had been provisionally selected for appointment as temporary
sub-Inspector of Police and the order of appointment was issued by
the Principal, Police Training College on 17-7-67. The Supreme Court
held that dismissal of the appellant by the Superintendent of Police,
who is a coordinate authority, is in order.
The Supreme Court referred to Union of India vs. Tulsi Ram
Patel, 1985(2) SLR 576 SC and pointed out that one of the illustrations
justifying cl (b) of the second proviso to Art. 311(2) being invoked
therein, is the non-availability of the witnesses on account of fear of
the officer concerned. In the instant case this was the main ground
and it cannot be said there was an abuse of power by the disciplinary
authority in invoking clause (b). The Superintendent of Police, who
passed the order of dismissal was the best authority on the spot to
assess the situation in the circumstances prevailing at the relevant
time and the Supreme Court does not find any good ground to interfere
with the view taken by the Superintendent of Police in this behalf.
The Supreme Court will not sit in judgment over the relevancy of the
reasons given by the disciplinary authority for invoking cl(b) like a
court of first appeal and even in those cases where two views are
possible, the Court will decline to interfere.