1. This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the petitioner who was a member of the Bombay City Police Force against an order of dismissal dated 8-12-1954. On the 21-7-1953 a notice was served upon him to show cause why he should not be suspended. On the 24-7-1953 he submitted his reply and ho was suspended on the 27-7-1953. Charges were furnished to him on the 2-11-1953 and the charges briefly were, first, that he joined one Rebello in engaging in trade in respect of certain watches which had been smuggled into India by Rebello, that he also contracted a debt in respect of these watches because although a sum of Rs. 2510/- was due to Rebello he had only paid him a sum of Rs. 1,400/-, and that his whole conduct appearing in these transactions was prejudicial and likely to throw discredit on the discipline and reputation of the Police Force. The second charge was that he was slack in his supervision, and the third charge was that he was found in his residence on the 16-7-1953 smelling of alcohol. On the 19-11-1953, the petitioner made a representation against the inquiry officer. The inquiry officer was Assistant Commissioner Rane. That representation was rejected by Government and the inquiry went on. On the 13-7-1954, the findings of the inquiry officer were submitted. On the 8-10-1954 a show-cause notice was served upon him to show cause against the punishment proposed to be imposed. He submitted his reply on the 3-1-1954, and on the 8-12-1954, as already pointed out, Government passed an order of dismissal, and at the time of the order of dismissal the petitioner was holding the rank of an Inspector in the Police Force.

2. Now, the main ground which was urged before Mr. Justice Coyajee and which has been urged before us is that he was dismissed without reference to the Public Service Commission, and what is relied upon is the provision of Article 320 (3) of the Constitution and that Article provides :

"(3) The Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall be consulted-

(c) on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State in a civil capacity, including memorials or petitions relating to such matters;"

and admittedly Government before passing the order of dismissal did not consult the Public Service Commission. What was relied upon by Government before Mr. Justice Coyajee was a regulation which had been issued under the proviso to this Article and that proviso is:

"Provided that the President as respects the all-India services and also as respects other services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and the Governor or Rajpra-mukh, as the case may be as respects other services and posts in connection with the affairs of a State, may make regulations specifying the matters in which either generally or in any particular class of case or in any particular circumstances, it shall not be necessary for a Public Service Commission to be consulted,"

Pursuant to this proviso the Governor made a regulation dated the 11-10-1951 and clause 15 of that regulation provides that it shall not be necessary for the commission to be consulted in any disciplinary matter relating, among others., to the posts and services specified in the Shedule, and item 21 of the Shedule provides: "All other services and posts to which appointments are made by authorities subordinate to Government except...," and the case of the Government was that this is a service or post to which appointment was made by the Commissioner of Police and -- therefore this service was taken out of the purview of the Public Service Commission. The petitioner was appointed an Inspector in 1947, by the Commissioner of Police find at one stage the Advocate General attempted to contend that if the petitioner was appointed by the Commissioner of Police then he belonged to ft service or post to which appointments were made by authorities subordinate