IMPORTANT POINTS
1. A person dealt with under any of the three clauses on the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India has a right of appeal where the correctness of the decision taken by appropriate authority will be subject to review.
2. Rules of evidence do not apply to departmental enquiries.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.—Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant was a Head Constable of Police in the service of the Punjab Government. He has been dismissed from service without holding an enquiry as contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The Senior Superintendent of Police (S.S. P.), Tarn Taran has invoked proviso (b) appended to the said clause (2), dispensing with the enquiry on the ground that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such an enquiry in the case of the appellant. The order of dismissal is dated February 21, 1992. The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar on June 22, 1993. The order of dismissal and the appellate order affirming it were questioned by the appellant by way of a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court which too has failed, as stated above. The order of dismissal passed by the S.S.P., Tarn Taran, reads :

"Whereas Head Constable Kuldip Singh No. 2874/TT of this district has been found indulging in activities prejudicial to the efficient functioning of the Police Force. He has very close links with extremists and helping them by providing information of the Police Department.

And whereas it is established that Head Constable Kuldip Singh No. 2874/TT is mixed up with the extremists and had been found responsible for supplying information relating to the Police Department.

And whereas in the interest of maintenance of law and general administration and retention of Head Constable Kuldip Singh No. 2874/TT of Police District Tarn Taran is considered undesirable.

And whereas I am satisfied that the circumstances of the case are such that if is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in Punjab Police Rules 16.24 because no witness is likely to depose against him due to fear of injury of his life.

Now, therefore, I Ajit Singh, Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran in exercise of the powers vested in me by virtue of the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules 16.1 read with Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, do hereby dismiss from service the Head Constable Kuldip Singh No. 2874/TT with effect from 21.2.1992."

3. On Appeal, the appellate authority found that the appellant did have links with the terrorists and was mixed up with them and he was supplying secret information of the police department to terrorists which was creating hindrance in the smooth functioning of the police department. The appellate authority also found that it was impossible to conduct an enquiry against the appellant because nobody would come forward to depose against such "militant police official The appellate authority also referred to the fact that the appellant was interrogated in a case; FIR No. 210/90, and that during interrogation he admitted that he was having links with Major Singh Shahid and Sital Singh Jakhar and was working for them. It further stated in its order that the appellant was preparing to murder some senior police officers while taking advantage of his position.

The High Court found that the reasons given by the S.S.P. for dispensing with the enquiry were acceptable and that the satisfaction recorded by him cannot be said to be unjustified or unwarranted. The High Court was also of the opinion that there was sufficient material before the disciplinary authority to conclude that it was not expedient to hold a regular enquiry against the appellant.

4. In this appeal, it is contended by Sri R.S.Sodhi, learned counsel for the appellant, that except the alleged admission/confession of the appellant made before the police officers during interrogation in FIR No. 219/90, there is no other material upon which the disciplinary authority could have concluded that the dismissal of the appellant was warranted. He