JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. Heard Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Vyom H. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Kurven Desai, learned AGP for the respondent-State.

2. The Challenge in this petition is to the order of dismissal dated 18.7.2018 passed by the respondent-authority.

3. Mr. Joshi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would rely on the CAV judgment passed in similar matter by the coordinate Bench of this Court namely; SCA No. 9967 of 2018 dated 31.7.2018. He further requested to pass the similar order in this order. The order dated 18.1.2022 reads as under:

"Whether the petitioner-an Unarmed Head Constable, was entitled to be given show-cause notice before his dismissal from service based on conviction of the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, when the competent authority exercised powers under Rule 3 of Bombay Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1956 read with Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution, is the question posed for consideration in the present petition.

2. The petitioner came to be dismissed by order dated 24th February, 2017 passed by the District Superintendent of Police, Dahod-respondent No. 3 herein. The Director General of Police-the appellate authority, confirmed the said order in appeal, where after the order was taken in revision before respondent No. 1. The revisional authority as per order dated 26th March, 2018 upheld the order of dismissal to confirm the order of the appellate authority dated 25th May, 2017.

2.1. The above orders are impugned in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is prayed further to reinstate the petitioner in service on his original post with all consequential benefits, as if the impugned order of dismissal was never passed.

3. The petitioner was posted at Shahera Police Station, Panchmahal, Godhra, as Unarmed Head Constable. On 26th August, 2009 a case was registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was initially suspended. He later came to be reinstated on condition that the outcome of the criminal case against him would bind him. The competent criminal court convicted the petitioner as per judgment and order dated 19th December, 2016 and punishment of rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine with default clause was imposed.

3.1. As a result of the conviction recorded against the petitioner, respondent No. 3-District Superintendent of Police passed the aforementioned order dated 24th February, 2017 exercising powers under Rule 3 of the Bombay Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The appeal and the revision application of the petitioner came to be rejected as noted above.

3.2. It appears that in passing the order of dismissal against the petitioner on the ground of conviction, the respondents rested the exercise of their powers on the Bombay Police Rules as well as the relied on Circular dated 05th August, 2003 of the General Administration Department of the State Government. The Superintendent of Police in the order of dismissal noted about the conviction to further observe that the petitioner had acted dishonest by taking bribe. It was stated further that the petitioner committed serious misconduct for which it was not advisable to continue him in service. According to the authority, it was a fit case where the guilty petitioner was liable to be dismissed straightway.

4. Assailing the impugned order, primarily and principally on the ground of non-observance of principles of natural justice that prior notice was not given before passing the order of the dismissal, learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gautam Joshi pressed into service decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ahmadkhan Inayatkhan v. District Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha [1989 (2) GLR 1301]. Therein a government servan