H. R. KRISHNAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by a police constable contending that the order of dismissal is bad for two reasons of non-compliance with the statutory rules. Firstly, while he had been appointed by the Inspector-General of Police, Madhya Bharat, he was removed by the order of the Superintendent of Police, Indore who is, of course, a Subordinate authority. The second ground is that he had not been given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine witnesses that deposed against him,

( 2 ) THE first ground is by now covered by a number of rulings including one by the Supreme Court in Rajvi Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 19. 58 SO 228. In 1946, the petitioner was appointed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police of the erstwhile Indore State. He was continued in the service of the Madbya Bharat State and was ultimately absorbed in the service of the new State; but the appointment as such continued and there was no fresh appointment. Under the rules in force in the Madhya Bharat State, a police constable could be removed from service by the Superintendent of Police subject to the proceedings, show-cause notices, inquiry and the other requirements of the rules and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document