JUDGMENT

MADON, J. :— The Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4041 of 1982, Shivaji Atmaji Sawant, was a Police Constable in the Bombay City Police Force attached to the Bandra Police Station in Bombay. He was governed by the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bombay Act No. XXII of 1951). By an order dated August 22, 1982, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, he was dismissed from service, without a charge-sheet having been issued to him and without any inquiry being held with respect to the misconduct alleged against him. The said order of dismissal was passed under Section 25(1) of the Bombay Police Act read with Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The writ petition filed by Sawant challenging the said order of dismissal was dismissed by the Bombay High Court. He has thereupon approached this Court in appeal by way of Special Leave granted by this Court.

2. The Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4363 of 1985, Namdeo Jairam Velankar, was a Head Constable in Armed Batch No. 645 and was posted at Aurangabad. He too was governed by the Bombay Police Act. He was also dismissed in the same way as Sawant by an order dated August 22, 1982, passed by the Superimitendent of Police, Aurangabad, under Section 25(2) of the Bombay Police Act read with Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. He had also filed a writ petition before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court which was dismissed and he too has approached this Court in appeal by way of Special Leave granted by this Court.

3. Section 25 of the Bombay Police Act specifies the officers who are entitled to punish the members of the Bombay Police Force Under Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, an authority empowered to dismiss or remove a civil servant or reduce him in rank is authorized to dispense with the inquiry provided in Clause (2) of Article 311, if it is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by it in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry. In the case of Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel and other connected matters, (1985) 3 SCC 398, a Constitution Bench of this Court has considered in great detail the scope and effect of Articles 309, 310 and 311 of the Constitution and particularly of the second proviso to Article 311(2). The conclusions reached by this Court in Tulsiram Patels case have been summarized in Satyavir Singh v. Union of India, (1985) 4 SCC 252. In view of this decision the only contention raised before us at the hearing of these Appeals was that the impugned orders of dismissal suffered from a total non-application of mind. The facts on the record, however, completely belie this contention and we will now proceed to narrate them.

4. Article 33 of the Constitution empowers Parliament by law to determine to what extent any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution (that is, the Fundamental Rights), shall in their application inter alia to the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them. In pursuance of this power Parliament has enacted the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 (Act No. 33 of 1966). As shown by the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the long title of the Act, the object of the Act is to provide for the restriction of certain Fundamental Rights in their application to the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and maintenance of discipline among them. Under Section 1(3), the said Act is to come into force on such date as may be appointed in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette, in a Union Territory, by the Central Government and in a State, by the Government of that State. It was brought into force in the State of Maharashtra with effect from July 15, 1979