Banerjee, J. - (1.) The petitioner was a constable in the Calcutta Police. Acting on a private complaint received against the petitioner, there were certain enquiries made by the police as a consequence whereof the petitioner was placed under suspension. Thereafter, on May 28, 1962, the petitioner was charged with misconduct as hereinafter stated: "You are hereby charged with conduct unbecoming of a Police officer and acting dishonestly In that: 1. Being a public servant to wit a constable of Calcutta Police, wrongfully detained one Bhakat Bahadur Rana otherwise known as R.B. Thapa, a durwan of Javeri and Co., Bullion merchants of 180 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta between 7 a.m. and 7-30 a.m. on Chittaranjan Avenue, Bentinck Street and Lower Chit-pore Road 2-3-62 and wrongfully seizing from his person a gold bar of the size of 1" x 21/2 x 1/2", weight about 234 tolas and approximately valued about Rs. 28,080, property of Javeri and Co. without any authority whatsoever and failing to report the detention or seizure either to your department or to local police for some ulterior motive.
(2.) Being a public servant to wit a constable of Calcutta Police on 3-3-62 illegally accepted a sum of Rs. 14,500 from one Nath-mal Jalan of 85/1, Monohar Das Street, Calcutta, on behalf of Javeri and Co. of 180, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta, in a hair cutting saloon at 26, Gopi Rose Lane, Calcutta, in consideration of returning the aforesaid bar of gold wrongfully seized by you and thereby have constituted an act unworthy of and unbecoming of a public servant.
(3.) Being a public servant to wit a constable of Calcutta Police sometime between 2-3-62 in Calcutta criminally misappropriated 134 tolas of gold valued approximately about Rs. 16,080/- out of the aforesaid bar of the gold wrongfully seized by you from the durwan of Javeri and Co., on 2-3-62, an act most unbecoming of a public servant." 2. The charge-sheet was signed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Detective Department. At the margin of the charge-sheet, a Deputy Commissioner of the Detective Department put his signature in approval of the charges. The petitioner showed cause against the charge. At the departmental enquiry mat followed the petitioner was found guilty of charges Nos. 1 and 3 quoted above but was exonerated of the second charge. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, who Held the enquiry, submitted a report to that effect. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 Deputy Commissioner gave a further personal hearing to the petitioner and agreed with the report of the respondent No. 2 Assistant Commissioner. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 Deputy Commissioner asked the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service on the charges proved against him. The cause shown by the petitioner against the proposed penal order proved unavailing and by an order, dated March 14, 1963, the respondent No. 2 Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petitioner from service with immediate effect. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 1 Commissioner of Police but that appeal was also dismissed. 3. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal the petitioner has moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a Writ of Certiorari for the quashing or the order of his dismissal, as affirmed in appeal, and for a Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents from giving effect thereto and obtained this Rule.;