JUDGMENT

VENKATARAMIAH, J. :— June 22, 1981 was really a bad day for the appellant Anoop Jaiswal who having been selected by the Union Public Service Commission for appointment in the Indian Police Service was undergoing training as a probationer, at the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy, Hyderabad along with other probationers. On that day all the probationers were expected to be present at 5.50 A.M. at the field where the ceremonial drill practice was to be conducted. Since it was raining at that time it appears that the venue was shifted to the Gymnasium Hall where it was proposed to conduct P. T./unarmed combat practice and intimation was sent to the trainees at the Mess. When the Assistant Director (Outdoor Training) reached the Gymnasium at 5.50 A. M. none of the probationers had reached there. They all reached the place 22 minutes late i.e. by 6.15 A.M. when the rains had abated and the parade commenced at 6.15 A. M. It appears that earlier when a messenger sent by the Assistant. Director had gone to call the probationers they had asked for a vehicle to go to the place as it was raining. The delay was considered as an incident which called for an enquiry. Explanation was called from all the probationers. The appellant was considered to be one of the ring leaders who was responsible for the delay. When the appellant was asked about the incident he gave his explanation to the Director of the National Police Academy which read thus :

"To.

The Director,

National Police Academy,

Hyderabad.

Dear Sir,

In reply to your Memo, dated 22nd June, 1981 I humbly submit that as for my being late in P.T. by 10 mts., I sincerely regret the lapse. But the second charge that I instigated others to do so is totally baseless and without a single iota of truth. I request you Sir to make a thorough enquiry into such an allegation. I never had nor have such plebeian mentality.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

sd/-

Anoop Jaiswal"

2. It would appear that the Director without holding an enquiry into the alleged misconduct recommended to the Government of India that the appellant should be discharged from the service. On the basis of the above report the Government of India passed the order of discharge dated November 9, 1981 and communicated it to the appellant. The material part of the order reads thus :

"No. I-22011/9/81-Pers. III Government of India / Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Home Affairs / Grih Mantralaya

...............

New Delhi-110001, the 9th Nov. 1981

ORDER

Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that Shri Anoop Jaiswal, appointed to the Indian Police Service on probation on the result of the Civil Service Examination held in the year 1979, is unsuitable for being a member of the said service, he is hereby discharged under clause (b) of Rule 12 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules 1954.

The order of discharge will take effect from the date on which it is served on the said Shri Anoop Jaiswal.

In the name of and on behalf of the President of India.

Sd/-

(Narendra Prasad)

Director"

3. On receipt of the above order of discharge, the appellant made a representation on November 14, 1981 to the Government of India to reconsider the matter. It appears that the Director of the National Police Academy on this occasion recommended that the appellant may be reinstated. That representation was rejected by the Government of India on April 8, 1982. Thereafter, he filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Delhi contending that the order of discharge was violative of Article 311 (2) and Article 14 of the Constitution. That petition was dismissed by the High Court at the stage of admission on August 30, 1982 after hearing the counsel for the Union of India. Against the judgment of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal with special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.

4. The main contention of the appellant before us is that the order discharging the petitioner though on the face of it appe