Judgment

OJHA, J. :- This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the Judgment dated 8th March 1976, of the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No. 261 of 1973. The appellant who was a Sub-Inspector of Police in Assam was dismissed by the Superintendent of Police, Darrang district, Tezpur, by Order dated 29th January, 1973. This order was passed without compliance with the requirements of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution on the ground that it was a case to which the provisions of Cl. (b) of the second proviso to Art. 311(2) were attracted. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Inspector- General of Police, Assam(Shilong). The said appeal having been dismissed he challenged the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order under Art. 226 of the Constitution in Civil Rule No. 261 of 1973 referred to above. The various submissions made on behalf of the appellant did not, however, find favour with the Learned Judges who heard the civil rule mentioned above resulting in its dismissal by the judgment appealed against.

2. Two submissions have been made by learned counsel for the appellant :-

(i) The appellant having been appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police by the Inspector General of Police, the order of his dismissal by the Superintendent of Police, Darrang, was illegal being in contravention of Art. 311(1) of the Constitution.

(ii) The provisions of CL (b) of the second proviso to Art. 311(2) of the Constitution were not attracted to the facts of the instant case and consequently the order of dismissal was illegal having been passed without compliance with the requirements of Art. 311(2).

3. In order to appreciate these submissions, it would be useful to extract Art. 311 of the Constitution. It reads :-

"Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State - (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.

Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed :

Provided further that this clause shall not apply -

(a) where a person is dismissed or removed in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or

(b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or

(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.

(3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such. inquiry as is referred to in Cl. (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final."

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find it difficult to agree with any of the submissions referred to above, In support of his first submission, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a Memo dated 7th July, 1967 from the office of the Inspector-General of Police which according to him was the letter of appointment whereby the appellant was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police. According to learned counsel for the appellant, this being so the order of dismissal having bee