Shah, J. - (1.) (Along With S. K. Das, Hidayatullah, And Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ.) - In 1931, the appellant was admitted to the police force of the United Provinces and was appointed a Sub-Inspector of Police. He was later promoted to the rank of Inspector, and in 1946 was transferred to the Anticorruption department. In 1947, he was appointed, while retaining his substantive rank of Inspector, to officiating rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Shortly thereafter, complaints were received by the Chief Minister and Inspector-General of Police, U. P., charging the appellant with immortality, corruption and gross dereliction of duty. In a preliminary confidential enquiry, the Inspector-General of Police came to the conclusion that "a prima facie case" was made out against the appellant. He then directed that a formal enquiry be held against the appellant to his substantive rank of Inspector and placing him under suspension. An enquiry was held into the conduct of the appellant by the Superintendent of Police, Anti-corruption department. The report of the Superintendent of Police was forwarded to the Government of U. P., and the Governor acting under R. 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules 1947 - hereinafter called the Tribunal Rules - referred the case for enquiry to a Tribunal appointed under R. 3 of the Tribunal Rules on charges of corruption, personal immorality and failure to discharge duties properly. The Tribunal framed three charges against the appellant and after a detailed survey of the evidence recommended on February 4, 1950, that the appellant be dismissed from service. The Governor then served a notice requiring the appellant to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service and after considering the explanation submitted by the appellant, the Governor ordered that the appellant be dismissed with effect from December 5, 1950. The appellant challenged his order by a petition instituted in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings of the Tribunal and for a writ of mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to hold an enquiry under S. 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.
(2.) In support of his appeal against the order of the High Court dismissing his petition, the appellant has raised three contentions: 1. that the order dismissing the appellant from the police force was unauthorised, because the Governor had no power under S. 7 of the Police Act and the regulations framed thereunder to pass that order ; 2. that even if the Governor was invested with power to dismiss a police officer, out of two alternative modes of enquiry, a mode prejudicial to the appellant having been adopted, the proceedings of the Tribunal which enquired into the charges against him were void, as the equal protection clause of the constitution was violated; and 3. that the proceedings of the Tribunal were vitiated because of patent irregularities which resulted in an erroneous decision as to the guilt of the appellant.
(3.) To appreciate the first two contentions, it is necessary briefly to set out the relevant provisions of the laws procedural and substantive in force, having a bearing on the tenure of service of members of the police force in the State of Uttar Pradesh.;