K.C. Sen, J. - (1.)THIS is an application filed by Manihar Singh for a writ of certiorari or a writ of like nature for quashing the impugned order dated 29 January 1960 passed by respondent 1, the Superintendent of Police, United Khasi -Jaintia Hills, Shillong, and the order passed in appeal by respondent 3, the Deputy Inspector -General of Police, Range Assam, Gauhati, dated 24 June 1966. He has also prayed that a writ of mandamus or a writ of like nature should be Issued directing the respondents to cancel, recall or otherwise forbear from giving effect to the impugned orders as aforesaid.
(2.)IT appears from the petition that constable No. 405, Manihar Singh of Laban Beat House at Shillong, was chargesheeted for commission of alleged offences as mentioned in the chargesheet and ultimately after evidence was taken, the Superintendent of Police dismissed the constable.
The main charge was that he Instigated a number of constables to approach the secretary of the Head Constables and Constables' Association, Shillong, to represent their grievances for delay in receipt of pay -packets for the month of June 1959. Further the constable also did an act of Indiscipline by ringing up directly to the Superintendent of Police, Shillong, to represent their grievances. There are various other charges to which no reference need be made for disposal of this petition, but at this stage it may be pointed out that he was also indicted for infringement of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules by the Additional Circle Inspector of Police. It will be found from anuexure A that the entire chargesheet was drawn up by the Additional Circle Inspector of Police, Shillong, and the evidence as against the constable was recorded by him as well. On the basis of this report the Superintendent of Police, however, dismissed the petitioner from service and stressed in his order that he had violated the Government Servants' Conduct Rules in committing the offences charged with. Although an important charge was framed for an lndisciplinary act of ringing up, the Superintendent of Police with the obvious purpose of having a conversation with him, the latter, however with fairness, did not enter into this charge for punishing the constable as he was a witness to such an event.

(3.)THE Assam Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1937, as amended up to 1 October 1952, do not bring in the acts as mentioned In the chargesheet as acts of indiscipline, within their purview. In the later rules of 1965 it has been however provided In Rule 3(1)(iii) that
every Government servant shall at all times do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant.

The appropriate authority has undoubtedly jurisdiction to punish any member of the subordinate staff for any delinquency and other acts of indiscipline without reference to the Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1937, and, therefore, in the absence of any provision as mentioned in the rules of 1965, resort to the former rules appears to be inappropriate. We have, without entering into the merits of the Impugned order, reasons to say so, as the aggrieved persons are prone to catch hold of any loophole for criticism as appearing in the order complained of.

;