Judgment

SHELAT, J.: - This appeal, by special leave, is against the judgment of the High Court of Patna dismissing in 1imine the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of his dismissal from service passed by the Government of Bihar.

2. The appellant was first appointed as a stenographer, Sub-Inspector of Police in 1940 in the Police Service of the State. After the requisite training in the Police training College at Hazaribagh, he was posted as a Sub-Inspector in 1950 Champaran District" In 1954, he was promoted to officiate as an inspector of Police. In June 1955, he worked in Saharsa District as an Officiating Inspector of Police; ....

3. In July 1955. he received a notice to show cause why disciplinary proceeding should not be taken against him in a matter relating to certain cloth recovered at Katihar Police Station in a Police Case under Sections 379 and 414 of the Penal Code. The appellant submitted his reply denying any misappropriation by him On September 26. 1955, he was served with a charge-sheet alleging misappropriation and connivance by him of misappropriation by two constables named therein. This was followed by an enquiry held by the Deputy Superintendent of Railway Police at Samastipur. The appellant alleged that the enquiry was held partially behind his back and was, therefore, bad. In April, 1956, the Deputy Superintendent of Police submitted his findings to the Superintendent of Railway Police, Samastipur holding that the charges against the appellant had been established. These findings were then submitted to the Inspector General of Police with a recommendation that the appellant should be awarded exemplary, punishment. In September 1957, the Inspector-General served a second show cause notice on the appellant to show cause why he should not be dismissed. The appellant submitted his reply and also appeared in person.

4. By his order dated September 30, 1958, the Inspector General exonerated the appellant from the said charges. But on the basis of certain adverse remarks in the confidential character roll of the appellant, he passed an order reverting the appellant to his substantive rank of Sub-Inspector of Police for a period of one year. This order clearly was one of penalty. Admittedly, there was no charge against the appellant founded on the said adverse remarks. The adverse remarks on the basis of which the order of reversion was passed were, as the said order itself pointed out, never notified to the appellant nor was any opportunity to explain those remarks ever afforded to the appellant before the order of reversion was passed.

5. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant filed an appeal before the Government. On November 7, 1959, the Government set aside the order of reversion passed by the Inspector-General. That was the relief prayed for by the appellant in his said appeal. The order was set aside on the ground that no opportunity had been given to the appellant to explain the said adverse remarks, and that therefore, it was legally unsustainable. But the Government passed instead an order of dismissal disagreeing with the findings of the Inspector-General and agreeing with the findings given by the enquiry officer, by whom the appellant had been found guilty.

6. On a further appeal to the Governor having been dismissed by the Government, the appellant filed a writ Petition in the High Court. On January 18, 1962, the High Court allowed the writ petition setting aside the Government s order of dismissal but directed that the appellant s appeal should go back to the Government for disposal according to law. The Government thereupon served a notice on the appellant to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service That notice was issued on the strength of Rr. 851 (b) and 853-A of the Bihar and Orissa Police Manual, 1930. The appellant thereupon gave his reply and requested for a personal hearing. The request for personal hearing was rejected. About a year after the High Court