( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the dismissal of the petitioner from service as a result of a departmental enquiry which was held against him.

( 2 ) BEFORE 1st November 1956, the petitioner was a Sub-Inspector of Police serving at Sironj in the state or Rajas than. As a consequence of Reorganisation of states, the Sironi region became a part of the new State of Mannya Pradesh and the services of the petitioner were allotrea to that State. In the year 1960, a departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner on the following charge. "that the petitioner had accepted Rs. 20/- each as illegal gratification from Ganpat son of Doongaji, Rupe, son. of Bhairao and Nathu son of kesar, all residents of village Mowdia, Police Station Agar, on 10-5-1960 under the Pretext that all these three persons have stolen Batassas the departmental enquiry was conducted by Shri Balmukund paliwal, Deputy superintendent of ponce, who submittea his report dated 11th september 1960 to the effect that the charge was fully proved. Thereupon, a notice to snow cause was duly served or the petitioner on 28th January 1961 and, after he submitted his reply, Shri I. J. Jonar, deputy inspector-General of Police, who had been appointed to be in charge of the current duties of the office of the Inspector-General of police in addition to his own, passed an order dated 13th April 1961 by which he dismissed the petitioner. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal to the State Government, but that appeal was dismissed on 2nd March 1962.

( 3 ) THE petitioner hag challenged the departmental enquiry and the two orders dated 13th April 1961 and 2nd March 1962 inter alia on the following grounds: (i) Contrary to the instructions issued by the Deputy inspector-general of police, the enquiry officer answer Shri Karansmgh, Station Officer, Agar, to remain present in the enquiry with the consequence that he exerted undue pressure on the witnesses to the prejudice of the petitioner (ii) Copies of statements of witnesses recorned outing the preliminary enquiry and other papers, which were applied for, were not supplied to the petitioner until after the conclusion of the enquiry on 10th september 1960. (iii) Even after the conclusion of the enquiry, one wit ness was examined to support the case against the peti- tioner, but he was thereafter denied an opportunity tc lead further evidence. (iv) The punishing authority denied to the pentioner an opportunity to present his case personally. (v) The appellate authority passed its order mecchanically and dismissed the appeal without giving any resons or applying its mind to the matter. (vl) As required by Note IV below Regulation 239 on the Madhya Bharat police Regulations and the instruction? issued in relation thereto, no autonomy interior to that of District Superintendent of Police was competent to hold departmental enquiry 'against a Sub-Inspector of police. The enquiry held in this case by the Deputy Supermtenaem of police was, therefore, tad law. (vii) The power to dismiss vesting in the inspection-General of Police was unconstitutionally delegated to Deputy inspector-General of Police. (viii) The petitioner was not finally allotted to me new state of Madhya pradesh and he could not be punisned by any authority in this State.

( 4 ) THE contention that the enquiry officer allowed sub-inspector Karansingh to remain present during the enquiry and thus to influence the witness was not accepted by the punishing authority. It has also been controverted in the return. Even so, the fact remains that two of the writnesses, on whom reliance was placed by the punishing authority, sent to the Deputy inspector-general of police. Western Range, sworn affidavits to say that the statements they made in the departmental enquiry were false. No doubt, in their further affidavits they affirmed the correctness of what they had stated in the enquiry, but they again sent