A public servant is entitled to have the whole of the matter brought to his notice before he is asked to show cause why a particular punishment should not be meted out to him.

JUDGMENT

HIDAYATULLA, J. 1. This appeal with special leave of this court is directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab dismissing in limine a petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by the appellant Avtar Singh questioning his dismissal from the police force.

The appellant joined the police force in 1943 and at the relevant time was working as a Foot constable in the force and was posted at Jullundur. On January 12, 1954 a report was made against him that he assaulted a girl in Rainak Bazar in the town of Jullundur whom he had kissed while under the influence of liquor. He was asked to appear on January, 13, 1954 before the Assistant Superintendent of P of Police Jullundur who explained to him the summary of the charge against him and asked him to explain his conduct. Thereafter eight witnesses were examined in support of the charge and he was also given a copy of the charge. He was asked to submit a list of defence witnesses within 48 hours together with a summary of what each witness was going to depose. It appears that he submitted a list of witnesses of whom 4 were not accepted by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, because the summary of their statement did not disclose that they had anything pertinent to say in the case. The other witnesses were to be examined on January 18 and 19, 1954. Of these only 8 witnesses eventually appeared, six of whom were examined on January 18, and the remaining two, on the next day. The appellant was then asked to file his written statement, if any and was given 7 days to do so. He filed a detailed written statement within that time. On February 9, 1954 the appellant was summoned before the Superintendent of Police. What transpired before that Office has been set down in the order incorporated in the affidavit filed by the respondent and may well be set out in the words of the affidavit. This is what happened.

"Seen him in my office this evening. He was explained briefly the charge against him. The charge is of such a nature which warrants dismissal from service. He was asked to say anything in furtherance of his earlier statement in his defence and why he should not be dismissed from the force. He has nothing to add." Eventually the appellant was dismissed fro the police force and Eventually the appellant was dismissed from the police force and was asked to return his kit. He appealed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police but his appeal failed. He then filed a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus directing the Government of Punjab to re in state him in service. The petition was dismissed summarily by the High Court, and the present appeal has been filed with the Special Leave of this court against the order of dismissal.

2. In the writ petition the appellant has averred in paras 11 and 12 as follows:

"11. That after the written statement was filed the enquiry Officer gave his finding on 29th January 1954 and sent the same to the S.P. Jullundur. (A copy of the findings forms annexure BB to this petition). These findings were not communicated to the petitioner, but the petitioner was summoned by the S.P. Jullundur on 9th of February 1954 to appear before him.

"12. That in obedience to the orders of the S.P. Jullundur the petitioner appeared before him on the said day. When the petitioner appeared before the S.P. o rally told the petitioner that he proposed to dismiss the petitioner. On this the petitioner requested that he should be given a proper show cause notice along with the finding of the Enquiry office. So that the petitioner may be able to meet the findings of the Enquiry Office.

When this appeal came before us on an earlier occasion it was pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that in as much as the writ petitioner had been dismissed summarily by the High Court the respondent had no opportunity to meet the allegation in the writ petitioner and the affidavit supporting it. We accordingly gave the respon