Dismissals must comply with constitutional provisions, particularly that the authority exercising dismissal powers must not be subordinate to the appointing authority.

1. This petition under Art.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 of Rajasthan. As a consequence of Reorganisation of States, the Sironj region became a part of the new State of Madhya Pradesh and the services of the petitioner were another to that state. In the year 1960, a departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner on the following charges :
"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 Nlowdia, Police Station Agar, on 10-5-1960 under the Pretext that all these three persons nave stolen Batasas. The departmental enquiry was conducted by Shri Baimukuna Halrwal, Deputy Superintendent of police, who submitted his report dated nth September 1950 to the effect that the charge was fully proved. Thereupon, a notice to show cause was duly served on the petitioner on 28th January 1951 and, after he submitted his reply, Shri. I.J. Johar Deputy Inspector - General of Police, who had been appointed to be in charge of the current duties of the office or the Inspector - General of Police in addition to his own, passed an order dated 13th April 1961 by which he as missed the petitioner. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal to the State Government, but that appeal was dismissed on 2nd March 1952.

3. The petitioner has challenged the departmental enquiry and the two orders dated 13th April 1951 and 2nd March 1952 inter alia on the following grounds :
(i) contrary to the instructions issued by the Deputy inspector - General of Police, the enquiry officer allowed Shri Karansingh, Station Officer, Agar, to remain preset in the enquiry with the consequence that he exerted unique pressure on the witnesses to the prejudice of the petitioner.
(ii) Copies of statements of witnesses recorded during 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 witness was examined to support the case against the petitioner, but he was thereafter denied an opportunity to lead further evidence.
(iv) The punishing authority denied to the petitioner an opportunity to present his case personally.
(v) The appellate authority passed its order mechanically and dismissed the appeal without giving any reasons or applying its mind to the matter.
(vi) As required by Note IV below Regulation 239 of the Madhya Bharat Police Regulations and the instructions issued in relation thereto, no authority inferior to that of District Superintendent of Police was competent to hold a departmental enquiry against a Sub-Inspector of once, the enquiry held in this case by the Deputy superintendent of Police was, therefore, bad in law.
(vii) The power to dismiss voting in the inspector - General of Police was unconstitutionally delegated to a Deputy Inspector - General of police.
(viii) The petitioner was not finally allotted to the new state of Madhya Pradesh and he could not be punished 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 witnesses, on whom reliance was placed by