Non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of paragraph 486 of the Police Regulations, particularly the failure to register the information received and conduct an investigation in accordance with the Cr.P.C., resulted in manifest injustice to the petitioner, warranting the quashing of the dismissal order.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 0$ the Constitution of India by Raj Pat Singh petitioner for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the various steps taken in the departmental proceeding: conducted against him which eventually resulted in his dismissal from service.

( 2 ) THE petitioner joined the U. P. Police Force as a Constable on 26-8-1947 and at the time the departmental action was taken against him, he was, holding the post of a Head Constable. In the month, of March or April 1955, the Station Officer, S.. Suraj Pratap Singh, orally reported to the Circle Inspector, Ram Nandan Rai, that the petitioner had not paid full amounts due to village chaukidars though he had obtained thumb-marks or signatures in token of having paid the full amounts to them, and thereby submitted a false report of full disbursement to the accountant, Thereupon C.. Ram Nandan Rai made an inquiry and recorded the statements of village chaukidars and of the petitioner. Thy Circle Inspector thereafter submitted his report dated 21-4-1955, Annexure I to the affidavit, to the S. P. On perusal of this report the S. P, ordered that departmental proceedings be taken against the petitioner. He further directed that the Dy. S. P. should conduct the departmental inquiry, It was then that the Deputy Superintendent of Police served the charge-sheet, Annexure 2 to the affidavit, on the petitioner which contained two charges; one with regard to the non-disbursement of the total amount to Chaukidars and the other with regard to those items which had by then been disbursed in full but in two instalments and not in a lump sum. Partial disbursement or disbursement in instalments of amounts which were payable to chaukidars was said to be irregular and motivated with corrupt motives. The Dy. S. P. recorded the evidence and submitted his finding on 1-7-1955 which is a part of the show cause notice which was served upon the (petitioner on or about the 2nd of July 1955, by the Superintendent of police, Bast. The show cause notice is Annexure 3, dated 2-7-1955. The representation made by the petitioner in reply to the show cause notice is Annexure 4. It was on consideration of the report of the Inquiring Officer and the various points raised by the petitioner in his representation that the S. P. passed the final order of dismissal as contained in annexure 5 dated 7-8-1955. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector general of Police, but it was dismissed under order dated 5-4-1956, Annexure 6 to the affidavit. The petitioner thereafter moved a revision application before the Inspector General of Police which met the same fate under order dated 18-5-1957, Annexure 7. It was at this stage that the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art, 226 by moving the present petition.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal on many grounds as detailed in the petition, but only one, namely, ground No. 4, has force.

( 4 ) IT may, first of all, be observed that the first two grounds are of a general nature. Therein it is alleged that proceedings were conducted against the petitioner in total disregard of the mandatory provisions of Ch. XXXII of the Police Regulations, specially para. 489. Apparently these general pleas have reference to grounds Nos. 5 to 7, wherein it was pleaded that the S. P. had acted illegally by refusing to grant leave to the petitioner to seek legal aid before submitting his reply to the show cause notice; that the S. P. and also the Dy. S. P. had failed to supply him copies of documents, necessary for his defence, and also failed to summon witnesses who would have made a statement in support of the petitioner; and that the charge itself was illegal and further proceedings taken on its basis could not be sustained.

( 5 ) IT will be found that none of the above four points were raised in the revision made before the inspector General of Police. The petitioner has not filed