( 1. ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed in June 1984, is for quashing the order dated 20-2-1981 passed by the superintendent of Police, Indore, in the common Departmental Enquiry held against the petitioner and five others, wherby he has been dismissed from Service.

( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that at the relevant time, the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Indore. He was appointed to the post by the Deputy Inspector General of Police by his order dated 13-2-1970 (vide ann. 4 ). The petitioner appealed to the Deputy Inspector General from the order of dismissal. That appeal was dismissed on 16-6-1981.

( 3. ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are these : The Supdt. of Police, indore had imposed punishment of censure on two police personnel who were office-bearers of the Union of non-gazetted police officials and had initiated actions in two other cases on complaints by the public. For setting aside those orders, the police personnel had indulged in agitational activities including gherao and slogans against the Superintendent of Police Ashok Patel on 14- 12-1980. On the following day on information about the agitation, some police personnel at Police Station, Mhow had also joined the agitation and had indulged in slogans against the Supdt. of Police and others. The Supdt. of Police, Indore initiated Departmental Enquries against the agitators. The charge framed against the petitioner is in respect of the said agitation.

( 4. ) IN the petition, amongst other grounds, it has been contended that the dismissal being by an authority subordinate to the petitioners appointing authority is violative of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India and deserves to be struck down. It has also been contended that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Supdt. of Police Ashok Patel against whom the agitation was directed, had himself initiated the Departmental Enquiry and had passed the impugned order. There is the further contention that amongst other rules, Rules 14 and 18 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, the Control and Appeal Rules) have also been violated as common proceeding was without any specific order for the purpose.

( 5. ) IN the return filed on behalf of the respondents, the various statements made by the petitioner were denied. It was stated that the petitioner was governed by the police regulations framed, under the Police Act, 1861. It was contended that the provisions of Control and Appeal Rules being inapplicable, cannot be invoked. According to the respondents, the Departmental Enquiry was conducted in all fairness and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

( 6. ) I shall first take up the contention regarding violation of the constitutional guarantee under Article 311 (1) of the Constitution.

( 7. ) AS to the position of a Government Servant, Article 310 of the constitution is pertinent. As pointed out in the decision in Hukumsinghs case, 1979 MPLJ 625 = 1979 JLJ 632, the principle of doctrine of pleasure contained in the said Article is subject to the guarantee given by Article 311 ibid. The following excerpt from paragraph 10 of this Courts decision in Krishna narayans case, 1985 MPLJ 343, is pertinent:

"except to the extent of guarantee contained in Article 311 ibid, and the provisions of the Rules made under Article 309, the common law right of the Government to terminate the service of its servant continues. The result is that whenever a Government Servant claims that the termination of his services is void and he is entitled to continue in service, he must show the breach of any of these provisions in order to substantiate his claim that the termination of his services is void and ineffective. In the decision in Manager, Government Branch Press vs. D. B. Bellappa, AIR 1979 SC 429 it has been pointed out that the rule of master and servant in its origi