Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as a constable in the Police Force of this State. In 1942 he was promoted to, the rank of Naik Constable and in 1945 to that of a Head Constable. In June 1955 he was posted as in-charge Head Constable at Police Outpost Regiment Bazar, Cantonment, Lucknow, S. I. Dharam Sen Singh was the Station Officer of the Police Station Cantonment and Sri D. D. Khosla was the City Deputy Superintendent of Police Lucknow at that time. In the night/ between 29th/30th June 1955 four or five house-trespass by night and theft cases took place within the limits of Cantonment Police Station. The petitioner entered the reports of those cases in the general diary maintained at the Regiment Bazar Outpost. It is his case that S. I. Dharam Sen Singh got annoyed with him on this account, as he considered the occurrence of four or five theft cases in one night in Ms Police Station as an adverse reflection on his administration. It is said by the petitioner that thereafter S. I. Dharam Sen Singh started harbouring a grudge against the petitioner and also poisoned the ears of Sri Khosla the Deputy Superintendent of Police against the petitioner. On 22-8-1955 the petitioner submitted an application for leave on the ground that his ancestral house in village Saraiyan Muafi, district Sultanpur had fallen down due to heavy rains, to the Senior Superintendent of Police at Lucknow through the Station Officer, Police Station Cantonment. According to the petitioner that application was not forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police or the Senior Superintendent of Police by S. I. Dharam Sen Singh and was withheld by him. 19th of November 1955 was fixed in a personal case of the petitioner in the Court of Munsif, North, Lucknow. As the petitioner's presence in that case was required in court, he applied to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City, Lucknow through the Station Officer, Police Station Cantonment for leave of absence for that day. Leave was not granted to him and he was sent on duty to Baheri in the District of Bareilly on 18-11-1955. After he had returned back from Baheri he made an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police through the Station Officer, Police Station Cantonment on 29-11-1955 complaining that he was arbitrarily refused leave for the 19th of November 1955. On 10th of December 1955 the petitioner was called by Sri Khosla, Deputy Superintendent of Police and was ordered to undergo punishment drill and confinement in barracks for a period of fourteen days on the charge that he had failed to go in general Gasht on the nights between 26th/27th July 1955 and 16th/17th August 1955 as reported by S. I. Dharam Sen Singh. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police explaining that he was busy with other public duties assigned to him as the time when he was expected to do the Gasht. He also mentioned in the explanation that he had already submitted an explanation to this charge to the Station Officer S. I. Dharam Sen Singh long before and as the said Station Officer was satisfied with his explanation the proceedings were closed. Sri Khosla, however, rejected this explanation and insisted on the petitioner carrying out the punishment inflicted on him. On 10th December 1955 the petitioner submitted a series of applications to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow praying for the setting aside the order of the punishment imposed on him by Sri Khosla. According to the petitioner the applications were couched in a very respectful language and the petitioner never intended to show any disrespect to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. On 1-2-1956 an order transferring the petitioner to the police lines, Lucknow was served upon him. The petitioner reported himself in the police lines on 3-2-1956. The same day he was called by the Addl. Superintendent of Police Sri K.S. Tripathi, who informed him that his applications dated 10th of December 1955 had been rejected and proceedings under Section 7 of the Indian Police Act had been started against him. A charge-sheet was handed over to him which runs as follows: "You, Hd. Cons. No. 35 C. P. Mahesh Dutt, are hereby charged under Section 7 of the Police Act for remissness and negligence in the discharge of your duties and thus unfit for the same for the following: 1. You/avoided going on gasht on the night of 26/27-7-1955 and 16/17-8-1955, while you were posted in OP. B. C. Bazar, P. S. Cantt.
(2.) You showed extreme indiscipline and insubordination by submitting various applications on and after 10-12-1955 requesting for getting yourself photographed while doing punishment drill, asking permission to file law suits against your superior officers and your medical examination before and after the punishment drill, which was awarded to you in the O. R. by Dr. S. P. City On 10-12-1955. You also make very in disciplined allegations against your superior officers in the various applications sent up by you." 2. The departmental proceedings against the petitioner were conducted by Sri K.S. Tripathi mentioned above. Sri K.S. Tripathi, after the conclusion of the departmental trial, submitted a finding to the Senior Superintendent of Police in which he found all the charges against the petitioner proved and recommended his dismissal from the police force. The concluding portion of his findings is as follows: "I, therefore, propose that he should be dismissed from service. The party charged should show cause within eight days of the receipt of this finding as to why the proposed punishment of dismissal should not be awarded to him. In case no explanation is received within the stipulated period of eight days, it will be presumed that he has no explanation to offer and orders will be passed accordingly. If the party charged submits a reply due consideration will be given before passing final orders."
(3.) It is the admitted case of the parties that beyond this order no other show-cause notice was served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the show-cause notice issued by Sri Tripathi. The Senior Superintendent of Police Sri Sen after considering that explanation but without himself issuing any show-cause notice dismissed the petitioner from the police force. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police which was rejected. Thereafter, he filed a revision application be fore the Inspector-General of Police which was dismissed on 2-6-1957. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed in this Court. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and a rejoinder affidavit by the petitioner. It is not necessary to mention the various allegations made in the affidavit, counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit in details. If and when necessary, I will refer to such of the allegations contained in those documents as are relevant for the decision of the case.;