ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant, while working as constable under the charge of Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central District, New Delhi, was charged with twofold grave misconduct : (i) while he was in charge of the sub-jail (naib court) he facilitated one Puran, s/o Rama, undertrial prisoner, to drink alcohol before being taken to the Court; and (ii) he had abused the superior officer and created an ugly scene in their presence. The inquiry officer in his report dated 20-7-1985 found that the second charge was partly proved and the first charge had not been proved. The disciplinary authority, viz., Additional Deputy Commissioner, disagreeing with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer, issued a show-cause notice on 16-8-1985 as to why both the charges should not be taken to have been proved. The appellant submitted his explanation and thereon by order dated 6-9-1986, the Additional Deputy Commissioner dismissed him from service. After unsuccessful appeal and revision, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in May 1986. The Tribunal in its order dated 17-9-1990 dismissed the OA. Thus this appeal by special leave.

3. Mr. Shyam Babu, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a threefold contention. First, that the Additional Deputy Commissioner is not the Deputy Commissioner in charge of the District and, therefore, he was not competent to impose the punishment on the appellant. It is next contended that the disciplinary authority had not given any reason in the show-cause notice to disagree with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer and that, therefore, the findings based on that show-cause notice are bad in law. Lastly, it is contended that even on proved facts the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents has refuted the contentions by submitting that the Additional Deputy Commissioner is of the same rank as the Deputy Commissioner and perusal of Rule 4 of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980, (for short the Rules) shows that Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police is also an authority on whom the power of appointment has been delegated. Therefore, he is competent to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. It is also urged that in the dismissal order the disciplinary authority had given reasons why he did not agree with the disciplinary authority and therefore, the show-cause notice is not invalid in law. Lastly, it is contended that the conduct of the appellant is unbecoming of the disciplined police force. Therefore, dismissal from service is the appropriate punishment.

5. The first question that arises is whether the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police is the competent authority. It is true that Section 11 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 enumerates the authorities, viz., Additional Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners who assist the Deputy Commissioner of the District. That section provided :

"11. Officers in charge of police districts, police sub-divisions and police stations. - (1) Each police district shall be under the charge of a Deputy Commissioner of Police who may be assisted in the discharge of his duties by one or more Additional Deputy Commissioners of Police.

(2) Each police sub-division shall be under the charge of an Assistant Commissioner of Police and each police station shall be under the charge of an Inspector of Police."

6. It would be seen that the Deputy Commissioner of Police is in charge of the district and one or more Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police has/have been authorised to assist the Deputy Commissioner. Section 19 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 lays down thus :

"19. Official chiefs and subordinates. - (1) In any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of expressing that a law relating to the chief or superior of an office shall apply to the