JUDGMENT

AHMADI, J.:— Invoking clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 16.1(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, the Assistant Inspector General, Government Railway Police, Patiala, passed the impugned order dated April 7, 1981 dismissing the petitioner from service with immediate effect. The reasons assigned for dispensing with the departmental enquiry contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution are set out in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, which reads as under:

"And whereas it has been reported that he has thrown threats that he with the help of other police employees will not allow holding of any departmental enquiry against him and he and his associates will not hesitate to cause physical injury to the witnesses as well as the enquiry officer."

The dismissal order is based on the allegation that the appellant was instigating his fellow police officials to cause indiscipline, show insubordination and exhibit disloyalty; that he was meeting other police officials and inducing them to stand against the senior officers and was thus spreading discontentment, hatred and dissatisfaction amongst his fellow policemen towards the superiors and that he betrayed lack of sense of discipline which was highly unbecoming of a member of the police force expected to maintain law and order. The appellant, feeling aggrieved by this order, preferred an appeal but of no avail. He, therefore, filed a Writ Petition No. 932 of 1982 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana challenging the impugned order on diverse grounds. The said Writ Petition was dismissed in limine on August 11, 1982. Feeling aggrieved by the summary dismissal of his Writ Petition he has preferred the present appeal by special leave. In order to understand his grievance it may be necessary to notice a few facts.

2. The appellant was placed under suspension on April 19, 1978 on the ground that he had absented himself from duty to attend the Annual Nirankari Samagam held on April 13, 1978. The allegation was enquired into through the concerned Assistant Superintendent of Police. As nothing objectionable was found he was exonerated and was ordered to be taken back in service with effect from the date of his suspension. Thereafter, two departmental enquiries were initiated against him. The outcome of the first inquiry was his reversion to the lower post of Constable; the second inquiry resulted in his dismissal from service. Both these orders of April 27, 1979 and October 12, 1979, respectively, passed by ASP/ GRP, Patiala were challenged by two separate appeals. Both these appeals were dismissed by the third respondent by his orders dated March 18 and 19, 1980. The appellant preferred two separate Revision Applications to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab which were allowed on October 13, 1980 and both the cases were remanded with a direction to reconsider the inquiry report and pass fresh orders.. The ASP/ GRP was directed to reinstate the appellant and then issue fresh show cause notices. After the above orders were passed the appellant rejoined duties as Head Constable on March 5, 1981. The third respondent, however, placed him under suspension forthwith. Thereafter, the appellant sought an interview with the Director General/ Inspector General of Police, Punjab by his two letters dated March 23 and 27, 1981 addressed to respondent No. 3. Since respondent No. 3 refused permission the appellant claims to have written a letter dated March 24, 1981 to the DG/ IGP informing him about the objectionable activities of respondent No. 3. The receipt of this letter by the office of DG/ IGP is, however, disputed although the appellant has produced an acknowledgement dated March 27, 1981 evidencing the receipt thereof. Be that as it may, the fact remains that after the remand orders were passed in the appellants two Revision Applications, the third respondent issued two separate notices, both dated April 4, 1981, calling upon the appell