The competent authority can disregard the enquiry officer's finding and come to a different conclusion, but the competent authority must consider the validity of the reasons given by the enquiry officer and state the grounds which impelled him to come to a different conclusion.

( 1 ) 1. These petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can be disposed of in a common judgment as they arise out of the same facts and raise the same points for determination. 2. The petitioner in W. P. No. 127 of 1957, is Sreedharaiah, who was P. C. 31 of Anantapur District. The petitioner in W. P. No. 153 of 195t is Venkataramanappa who was P. C. 75 of the same District. 3. In order to appreciate the points debated before us, it is necessary to set out the admitted facts in their chronological sequence. The two petitioners were in service as police constables in the State of Andhra. In October. 1954, they were attached to the Police Station at Kadiri in Anantapur District. While so, a complaint of irregular and improper conduct in the discharge of their duties was made against them. Having decided to set in motion the machinery preliminary for punishment, the District Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, placed the petitioners under suspension and framed a specific charge on 25-10-1954, which is as follows: (In this judgment, the communications sent to the petitioners in W. P. No. 127/57 and the representations made by him are set out; those in the other Writ petition are identical and do not require to be extracted. For the sake of convenience, the Deputy Superintendent who held the enquiry against the petitioners is referred to in this judgment as enquiry officer and the District Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, who was competent to dismiss the petitioners and did dismiss them is referred to as the competent authority ). "p. C. 31 Sridharaiah of Kadiri station (petitioner in W. P. No. 127/57): For grave misconduct in receiving along with P. C. 75 Venkataramanappa (petitioner in W. P. 153/57) illegal gratification of Rs. 74 on 15-10-1954 from one Chakala Muneppa and two others of Kadiri who were in possession of stolen properties seized in Cr. Nos. 144 and 145 of 1954 of Kadiri Station. "after setting out the facts in evidence and the witnesses proposed to be examined in support of the charge, the charge memo concluded as follows ;"acknowledge receipt of copy of charge and offer your written explanation within 7 days of receiving the charge showing cause as to why you should not be dismissed or otherwise punished, failing which it will be construed that you have no explanation to offer and the matter will be disposed of ex parte. You will say whether you want a personal hearing. Please also produce a list of documents you propose to cite and a list of witnesses you propose to examine in your defence with the points upon which you expect each Will speak. "the petitioners duly submitted their explanation in writing stoutly denying the charge. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anantapur who was appointed by District Superintendent to conduct the enquiry and submit a report held an enquiry in the manner required by the relevant rules. Before the enquiry officer, ten witnesses were examined in support of the charge. Besides cross-examining those witnesses, the petitioners examined four witnesses in their defence. After evidence was closed, the Enquiry Officer prepared a minute. In it, after reciting the charge and summarising the explanations submitted by the petitioners, the Enquiry Officer elaborately considered the evidence of each of the witnesses, who gave evidence in support of the charge and in denial thereof. He submitted to the District Superintendent on the 15/05/1955 (based on detailed discussion of the evidence) in support of the finding: "weighing the evidence as a whole, I am inclined to judge that the story of illegal gratification is false and that it is not proved. "on 31-5-1955, Shri D. Srinivasulu Naidu, the then District Superintendent, issued a notice calling upon the petitioners to submit their further representations. It was in these terms:"i have carefully studied and examined the P. Roll against you. I find the charges proved. I have arrived at a provisional conclusion