A probationer in the police force is entitled to a departmental enquiry before being dismissed from service under Reg. 228 of the Police Manual.

1. This as an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution on behalf of one Dongarsingh, who was employed as a Sub-Inspector of Police on probation for two years and was discharged by an order of the Inspector General of Police dated 24-10-1950.

2. It appears that on 10-1-1947 the petitioner was appointed a Sub-Inspector of Police on probation for two years. The period of probation ended on 9-1-1949, and it was not extended in terms by any order of the Government or of the Police department. While the petitioner was serving as a SUB-Inspector of Police a memorandum no. 1117-H dated 5-9-1949 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Western Range, was served on the petitioner to the effect that he was discharged from service on account of his unworthy conduct alleged against him in relation to a refugee woman. He was given 15 days' time to show cause against the proposed order of discharge. The petitioner showed cause, and after that was done, on 30-9-1949 the Deputy Inspector General of Police passed an order of discharge.

Thereupon the petitioner made his representation to the Inspector General of Police, who by his order dated 7-12-1949 in effect refused to interfere, though his words were 'Your mercy petition for reinstatement is rejected.'

Thereafter the petitioner addressed an appeal to the Minister of Home Affairs, but in the meanwhile it was realized that the order of discharge passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police was not legal in view of the reported decision to the effect that the order of discharge should be by the same authority which had appointed the person. It was thus realized that it was the Inspector General of Police who could have passed the order of discharge. He therefore cancelled the order of discharge dated 30-9-1949 made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, and the petitioner was called upon to show cause within 15 days why he should not be "dismissed" from service.

3. The petitioner then submitted his written, answer. The Inspector General of Police passed the following order on 24-10-1950:

A fresh show cause notice under Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution of India was issued to the probationer S. I. Dongarsingh Bais of Wardha District. In reply he has repeated the facts which he had stated previously and which in no way mitigate the seriousness of the charge levelled against him.

The conduct of the probationary S. I. in this connection has been found most unsatisfactory and unbecoming of a Police Officer. In these circumstances, I am unable to take a lenient view in the matter in such a grave charge which stands amply proved, and accordingly I discharge him from service with effect from the date this order reaches him.

4. The petitioner then moved the Minister for Home affairs against the aforesaid order of the Inspector General of Police, and the Government rejected the representation by the order dated 28-8-1951. Hence the petitioner has moved this Court (1) for quashing the order of discharge dated 24-10-1950, (2) to reinstate him in service, (3) to pay him all his emoluments from 11-10-1949, and (4) to award him all the costs of these proceedings.

5. A return was made on behalf of the Government of Madhya Pradesh to the effect that though the petitioner's period of probation expired on 9-1-1949 he had never been confirmed because he had not passed the departmental examination in the vernacular language, which in his case was Marathi.

It was also contended on behalf, of the Government that the petitioner's case did not fall within the terms of Reg. 228 of the Police Manual and that therefore a departmental enquiry was not. necessary, nor was it necessary to suspend the petitioner.

All the same it was admitted in para. 10 of the return that the petitioner was as a matter of fact placed under suspension, and that seems to be a true statement of the position as appears from the order at p. 28 of the paper-book to the following effect: Probationary S. I. Dongarsingh is placed under su