( 1 ) THIS appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated September 29, 1978ofd. K. Kapur, J. dismissing the writ petition of the appellant seeking a writ of certioari to quash the departmental enquiry including the order of dismissal of the appellant from police force.

( 2 ). The appellant was appointed on March 29, 1963 as a Constable in the Delhi Armed Police, Delhi. He was served with a memorandum of charge-sheet dated July 2, 1968 informing him that a departmental enquiry under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short PPR) as applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi is proposed to be held. The allegations on which the enquiry was proposed to be held were set out in the summary of allegations enclosed reading as follows :-

"it is alleged that Const. Khem Chand No. 2152 DAP IIIrd BN d Coy while posted at Guard Duty at RTC Mehrauli on 17. 6. 68 at 8. 10 A. M. was shhbbily dressed, and was not got his hairs cut ASl Ganpat Ram checked him and asked him why he was shabbily dressed and had not got his hairs cut. Const. Khem 382 Chand 2152 DAP misbehaved the ASI in presence of ASI Rameshwar Dial and told him to do whatever he likes. ASI Ganpat Ram lodged a report in the daily diary No. 8 dated 17-6-68 at RTC. Mehrauli and brought it into the notice of RI Sh. Braham Dutt Inspector. This act of Const. Khem Chand No. 2152 D. A. P. amounts to gave misconduct and remissness in the discharge of his duties while on Guard duty and renders him unfit for being a Police Officers. Thus making him liable tor departmental action. "

( 3 ). Inspector Nihala Ram, Enquiry Officer recorded the evidence of Public Witness. 1 to 4 and D. W. 1 to 6 and took the written statement of the delinquent official and came to the conclusion that "const. Khem Chand was in shabby dress and misbehaved his superior officers and I, therefore, hold him guilty as the charge against the defaulter stands proved". The enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority i. e. Commandant Delhi Armed Police who agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that the article of charge was proved. The disciplinary authority provisionally came to the conclusion that the appellant was not a fit person to be retained in service and proposed to impose on him the penalty of dismissal from service. The show cause notice dated October 25, 1968 was issued. The delinquent official filed his representation. The Commandant, Delhi Armed Police in the order dated February , 1969 imposed the punishment of dismissal as proposed in the show cause notice with effect from that date. The appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police in the order dated August 8, 1969. The revision petition was also dismissed by the Inspector General of Police in the order dated March 12, 1970. All these orders were challenged by the appellant in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ). The learned Single Judge noticed the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant as to the validity of the departmental enquiry and other related matters but expressed the opinion that the enquiry is in accordance with Article 311 of the Constitution. He then noticed the argument of the counsel that the mere finding by the Enquiry Officer that the appellant was shabbily dressed and had misbehaved disrespectfully with the Assistant Sub-Inspector was not sufficient to justify an order of dismissal. He construed the provisions of Section 7 of the Punjab Police Act. 1861 and PPR 16. 2. The learned Single Judge felt that the finding of unfitness being purely a subjective matter could not be reversed or reviewed in the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution though his Lordship felt that the penalty was excessive.

( 5 ). The first submission of Mr. Sital A. K. Dar, the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no evidence on the record to support the finding of the Enquiry Of