( 1 ) PETITIONER, a graduate was selected as a sub-inspector (Civil Police) cadet for training in, and joined, the Police Training College, Moradabad, in April 1962, Principal of the College, who is a deputy Inspector-General, expelled him from the college on December 15, 1962, for misconduct. As long as that order is there, he cannot complete the training; and until he completes the training, he is ineligible for appointment as a sub-inspector. So he has filed this petition to remove the order from his way.

( 2 ) THE petition was initially heard by a single Judge. He has referred it to a larger Bench, Hence the petition has come before us. It appears to us from the referring order that the whole case has been referred to us for decision.

( 3 ) THERE was a scuffle between the petitioner and two other cadets. S. N. Misra and O. P. Sharma, in the barrack on December 13, 1962. The petitioner is expelled on account of disorderly conduct in the scuffle. His grievance is that he has been expelled without fair hearing.

( 4 ) THE case against the petitioner was investigated by B. M. Sharma, Senior Professor of the college There is some dispute between the parties about the exact course of the procedure followed by B. M. Sharma during the enquiry. But two essential facts are clear beyond any doubt; one, the petitioner and the other two cadets were asked by B. M. Sharma to write out their version of the incident, and they did tender their version forthwith; two, the petitioner did not get any opportunity to cross-examine them as well as two other cadets. Y. Singh and P. Singh, whose statements were recorded sometime later behind his back.

( 5 ) THE record before us does not disclose that a written charge-sheet was given to the petitioner before he was asked by B M. Sharma to state in writing his version of the incident. Presumably b. M. Sharma had orally apprised him of the misconduct of which he was accused. At all events the enquiry had followed in the wake of the incident and the whole thing was then so fresh and vivid in his mind that the want of a charge-sheet could cause little prejudice to him in his defence. Indeed that is not his real grievance.

( 6 ) THE sting of his grievance is in the fact that he has been expelled on the untested testimony of the four cadets in contravention of the principles of natural justice. The right of cross-examination is anchored by him to Rule 23 of the U. P. Police Training College Manual, part III.

( 7 ) RESPONDENTS counter the argument in two ways: (1) that Rule 23 is not law but only a departmental instruction; and (2) that if it is law, it does not provide for a hearing.

( 8 ) RE-- (1): The Manual does not disclose its pedigree. But it also does not profess to be a set of departmental instructions. Section 8 of the Police Act, 1861, provides that "the entire police-establishment under a Stale Government. . . . . . shall consist of such number of officers and men, and shall be constituted in such manner, as shall from time to time be ordered by the State Government. " clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 46 of that Act enables the State Government to make rules for giving effect to the provisions of the Act. By virtue of that provision the State government may make rules regulating the manner of constituting the police establishment. Prima facie it seems to us that the rules in the Manual including Rule 23 could be made under section 46 (2) (c ). But we do not propose to decide the question, for we think that our answer to the second argument of the respondents is determinative of the case.

( 9 ) RE.-- (2): Aside of Rule 23 the petitioner cannot and has not claimed the right of cross-examination. So we turn to Rule 23, assuming it to be of statutory effect. Rule 23 pertinently reads: " (ii) Cadets guilty of disobedience of orders, misconduct subversive of discipline or remissness or negligence in the performance of their duties shall be liable to any or all of the following puni