( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28/2/1989 [annexure `a] passed by the D. S. P. , Western Railway, Baroda, dismissing the petitioner from service, and also the subsequent order dated 19/3/1990 [annexure `b] passed by the D. I. G. , confirming the above order. The petitioner has prayed for reinstatement with full backwages.

( 2 ) THE petitioner joined the services as an unarmed police constable in the year 1963. The petitioner was posted as a railway constable. The petitioners wife was also a lady constable in the police department. On account of frequent transfers, the petitioner had made a grievance against such transfers. It appears that the petitioner had also made grievance about delay in release of the increments in his wifes salary. The petitioner was making representations and ultimately, when he found that his grievances were not being redressed, he sent a notice that he will go on hunger strike to death. The petitioner started his hunger strike in front of the western railway police, Vadodara on 26/1/1985. The petitioner called off his strike on 1/4/1985 as his son was sick. During this period, majority of the petitioners grievances were redressed. 2. 1 however, in the meantime, on 5/2/1985, the petitioner was placed under suspension and he was prosecuted for offence u/s 309 of IPC, but was acquitted by the learned Magistrate. The suspension order was revoked on 16/8/1986. The petitioner was served with the chargesheet on 23/9/1986 alleging that the petitioner had committed serious misconduct by threatening to go on hunger strike and by going on such strike. During the departmental inquiry, the petitioner was served with the second show cause notice dated 1/2/1989 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. Ultimately, the impugned order dated 28/2/1989 came to be passed, dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioners appeal was also dismissed by the D. I. G. on 19/3/1990. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court.

( 3 ) AT the hearing of this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was acquitted by the Criminal Court, the respondent ought not to have held any departmental inquiry. In any case, there is no misconduct, if at all, in going on hunger strike. Otherwise also, the penalty of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner was too harsh and disproportionate, considering the fact that the petitioner had already put in 25 years of service and the petitioner would be losing his retirement benefits. Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Oza on the decision in Chandresh Pande v/s Union of India, 1985 LAB. I. C. 1490, taking the view that the conduct of an employee going on hunger strike was not unbecoming of a government servant.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, Ms. Rohini Acharya, learned AGP has opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner being a member of a disciplined force like the police force, cannot be permitted to defy the authority merely because in his perception his grievances were not redressed. It is always for the authority to decide whether there is any substance in the grievance or not and to grant the relief if there is substance in any of the grievances, but an employee in government service, much less a constable in the police force, cannot be permitted to decide for himself the justification of taking extreme step and going on hunger strike. It is submitted that even if there was any substance in the grievances of an employee, he has no right to go on hunger strike which would amount to an act of indiscipline and, therefore, certainly misconduct. It is further submitted that the criminal case was in respect of offence u/s 309 IPC, whereas the departmental inquiry in question was in respect of an act of indiscipline on part of the constable in the police force.

( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties