( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to call up and quash by certiorari-

(i) an order dated 16th July 1963 whereby the Superintendent of Police, chhindwara, dismissed the petitioner from service; (ii) an order dated 24th October 1963 by which the Deputy Inspector general of Police, Jabalpur, dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the earlier order; and (iii) an order dated 24 February 1964 by which the Inspector General of police rejected the petitioner's further representation against the action taken in regard to him.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are these. At the material time, the petitioner was employed as a Head Constable attached to the Police Station House at Amarwara, on 25th December 1962, Abdul Mobin, Circle Inspector, received from one Maganlal a complaint against the petitioner. The Circle Inspector held a preliminary enquiry and submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police who, on 24th January 1963, directed that a departmental enquiry be held against the petitioner on the following charges:

(i) For not taking cognizance of an offence when, in his presence, Mihilal was obstructing Jhanaklal Patwari in the discharge of his duties. (ii) For accepting Rs. 100/- and Rs. 60/-from Mihilal and Mansaram respectively and taking, out of which, Rs. 80/- dishonestly. (iii) For examining one Mst. Tajbi, wife of Slier Ali when she was not involved in any cognizable offence and accepting in the course of the same transaction Rs. 2/- as bribe from Sher Ali. (iv) For extorting Rs. 10/- as bribe from Vishwanath by charging him of complicity in the elopment of Chhiddi Chamar's wife. (v) For abusing filthily H. C. Gajanand in the police station house and behaving in an indisciplined and unworthy manner. A charge sheet, together with a statement of allegations, was duly served on the petitioner, who was, at his request, given a translation of those documents in Hindi. The departmental enquiry was held by the Deputy superintendent of Police, Chhindwara, from 6th March 1963 to 2nd May 1963. On the last mentioned date, the Deputy Superintendent proceeded on leave and the enquiry was taken over by Circle Inspector Mishra. He completed the enquiry and submitted his report dated 2nd June 1963 to the effect that the charges were not proved. The Superintendent of police, however, took a different view, provisionally held on 25th June 1963 that the charges were proved and issued on the same date the usual show cause notice. After the petitioner submitted his reply dated 11th July 1963, the Superintendent of Police passed the impugned order dated 16th July 1963, which as already indicated, was affirmed in appeal. The petitioner has challenged the enquiry held against him and the orders therein passed on several grounds enumerated in paragraph 24 of the petition. Only three of these grounds were pressed before us and, as we would show immediately, they are well founded.

( 3 ) THE first of these grounds is that the enquiry was, in part, held by Circle inspector Mishra to whom the power to hold the enquiry had not been delegated. In regard to this, all that could be brought to our notice was that, on 2 May 1963, the Deputy Superintendent recorded, while proceeding on leave, that, in accordance with the directions of the Superintendent of Police, he handed over the "d. E. File" to C. I. R. N. Mishra. No. written order of the Superintendent of Police was produced before us. It is unlikely that he had given only a verbal order. In any event, his affidavit to the effect that he had given such an order is not before us. In this situation, we find it difficult to accept that the Superintendent of Police had entrusted the holding of the enquiry to C. I. Mishra. As pointed out by the supreme Court in Mohammad Ghouse v. State of Andhra, 1957 SCR 414 : ( (S)AIR 1957 SC 246), it is the appropriate authority under Article 311 of the constitution which proposes to take action against a civ