SH. NAJAMAL HUSSAIN MEHADI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 496 · Decided: 09-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SH. NAJAMAL HUSSAIN MEHADI 
v. 
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: trans-
fer 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 inspec-
tor 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 stateme~ts 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 Ad-
ministrative 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 allega-
tion against him for shielding the hotel Manager and he also recom-
mended 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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.