The Inspector-General of Police was competent to dismiss the appellant as he was deemed to be the appointing authority at the time of integration of the princely states with the rest of India, and Rule 246 of the M. B. Police Regulations was applicable to the appellant's case as he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment by the High Court.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been referred to us on account of conflict of decisions by this Court on the interpretation of the provisions of Article 311 (1) of the constitution of India. The order of reference reads as follows:

"in view of the importance of the question as also conflict of views expressed in Abid Mohommad Khan v. The State of Madhya Bharat (AIR 1956 Madh Bha 259); Ramchandra Gopalrao v. D. I. G. Police (AIR 1957 Madh Pra 126); Raghunath Singh v. State of Madhya bharat (AIR 1959 Madh Pra 43) and V B. Kharate v. State of M. P. (1959 MPLJ 534), the case shall be heard by a Full Bench. Accordingly, the case is referred to a Full Bench. "

( 2 ) BEFORE embarking upon the consideration of the points of law arising in the case we think it proper to give a brief resume of facts.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff-appellant Dinkarrao (to be referred to hereafter as appellant)was Sub-Inspector of Police in the service of the State of Madhya Pradesh. A criminal case under Sections 330 and 331, I. P. C. was instituted against the appellant, as a result of which he was convicted under Section 323, I. P. C. by the trial Court on 26-2-54 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the appellant under Sections 330 and 331, I. P. C. the State of madhya Pradesh filed appeal in the High Court and the same was allowed on 611-57. The High Court convicted the appellant under Section 330, I. P. C. and sentenced him to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment in addition to fine of Rs. 200. As a result of the conviction of the appellant by the Eight Court under section 330, I. P. C. the Superintendent of Police, Guna, suspended the appellant with effect from 6-11-57. The appellant served out the sentence awarded to him by the High Court end was released from jail on 6-2-58. Thereafter, the inspector-General of Police M. P. dismissed the appellant on 24-4-58 with effect from 6-11-57, the date of his conviction by the High Court.

( 4 ) THE appellant filed appeal from the order of his dismissal, but the same was rejected by the Government of M. P. The appellant then filed the present suit for declaration that the order of his dismissal was illegal and void being in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The State Government resisted the suit. The trial Court, namely--the Civil Judge Class I Guna decreed the plaintiff-appellant's suit vide his judgment dated 17-4-69. He held that the order of dismissal of the appellant passed by the I. G. Police was ultra vires, illegal and void and consequently liable to be set aside. He also awarded Rs. 5,100 on account of salary and deamess allowance to the appellant.

( 5 ) DISSATISFIED by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the government of M. P. filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Guna, who by his judgment dated 29-5-69 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appellant's suit. Hence, this second appeal. As already stated above the learned single Judge before whom the appeal was laid, admitted it and has referred it to a Full Bench.

( 6 ) SHRI H. G. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant has urged the following two points in support of the appeal:--

(i) that the order of the apellant's dismissal passed by the I. G. of police M. P. is void being in contravention of Article 311 (1) of the constitution as the Inspector-General of Police was an authority subordinate to the Maharaja of Gwalior by whom the appellant was appointed on 9-7-42.

(ii) that Rule 246 of the Madhya Bharat Police Regulations has no application to the appellant's case and since the procedure prescribed under Rule 237 of the said Regulations was not followed, the impugned order of dismissal is liable to be set aside.

( 7 ) POINT Not (i) : In Abid Mohammad Khan v. The State of M. B. (AIR 1956 Madh bha 259) a Division Bench of this Court held that if a civil servant is dismissed from service fey an authority which is