Judgment Narasimham, J. 1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the order of the Inspector General of Police. Bihar, dismissing the petitioner from service is under challenge. The petitioner was a police constable serving in Jamshedpur attached to Sita-gora Town Out-Post in the year 1959. On 7-12-1959, he was called upon to answer the following three charges of gross misconduct (Annexure A): "1. On 4-10-59 afternoon he allowed gambling to be played in his presence in the maidan near Bara Dairy Farm. 2. He, taking part of some of the gamblers, caught Kailash Bihari Lal and his companion Lakhan Kurmi on the same date in the evening from near Bara Dairy Farm assisted by C/495 Manohar Singh and others and detained the two persons at Sidgora T. O. P. till about 10 p. m. on 4-10-59 and assaulted them. 3. He failed to lodge or submit any report about his above acts to any of his superior officers." He gave his explanation and one Sri Mahmud Hussain conducted the departmental proceeding against him on 7-2-1960. Subsequently, the enquiry was conducted by one Sri Mangala Prasad. D. S. P., Jamshedpur. Witnesses were examined partly by Sri Md. Hussain and partly by Sri Mangala Prasad. Two of the important witnesses against the petitioner were (1) Gauri Shankar and (2) Kailash Bihari. The petitioner cross examined them but it was urged that he was very much handicapped in cross examining them because a copv of the original petition of Gauri Shankar on the basis of which the departmental proceeding had been initiated against him was not given to him. Hence on 2-1-1962, the petitioner filed an application (Annexure C) making the following prayer (see paragraph 8): 1. A copy of the earliest petition on the basis of which the proceedings were started against him may be given to him. 2. Sambhu Babu, namely, Sri Shambhu Saran, District Inspector of Police, Jamshedpur, who had held a preliminary confidential enquiry may be summoned for cross examination, and 3. One Birendra Singh may be produced for being examined as petitioners witness. This prayer was not allowed, but as a copy of the order-sheet, if any, maintained by the departmental authorities during the course of the departmental enquiry has not been filed, It is difficult to my what was the actual order passed by the officer concerned. One Birendra Singh may be produced for being examined as petitioners witness. This prayer was not allowed, but as a copy of the order-sheet, if any, maintained by the departmental authorities during the course of the departmental enquiry has not been filed, It is difficult to my what was the actual order passed by the officer concerned. Eventually, on 28-7-1962, the Superintendent of Police, Singhbhum, (Annexure D) held that the charges were proved and called upon the petitioner to show cause why he may not be dismissed, But along with the show cause notice a copy of the findings of the officer who held the departmental enquiry was not sent to the petitioner. Hence, on 28-7-1982 the petitioner applied te the Superintendent of Police for a copy of the same. This, however, was not given. The S.P. passed a minor punishment of deduction of Re. 1 from the petitoners salary for three years, but the I. G. of Police reviewed the entire proceeding and thought that the petitioner should be dismissed from service for the said charges. The petitioner was thereupon asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed, and the petitioner filed a representation before the I. G. of Police (Annexure G). This was not accepted as sufficient and eventually the I. G. of Police dismissed him from service with effect from 18-1-1964. The actual order of the I. G. of Police is as follows (Annexure I): "I have perused the cause shown by C/495 Manohar Singh and C/122 Kesho Rai. The charges have been amply proved against both of them of having illegally obtained (? detained) person in the T. O. P. Their previous record is also bad and it would appear that they are in habit of committing such irregularities. I, therefore, hold that the punishment awarded to them was inadequate and that they may be dismissed from the force with effecl from 18-1-64." 2. It was contended by Mr. Basudeva Prasad on behalf of the petitioner that he was not given a fair opportunity of defending himself because (1) a copy of the original complaint on the basis of which the entire proceeding was initiated was not given to him. (2) his specific prayers (Annexure C) for recalling Sri Shambhu Saran. It was contended by Mr. Basudeva Prasad on behalf of the petitioner that he was not given a fair opportunity of defending himself because (1) a copy of the original complaint on the basis of which the entire proceeding was initiated was not given to him. (2) his specific prayers (Annexure C) for recalling Sri Shambhu Saran. Inspector of Police, for the purpose of cross-examination and for producing Birendra Slngh to give evidence on his behalf were rejected without giving any reason and (8) a copy of the findings of the enquiring officer which ought to have been given to the petitioner when he was called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service was withheld Hence he could not effectively show cause against the proposed punishment. The petitioners allegations in this respect which have been supported by an affidavit filed on his behalf have not been challenged by any counter-affidavit by a competent authority. As already pointed out, a copy of the order-sheet, if any maintained by the enquiring officer, is not on record. Hence, there is no material to challenge the correctness of the petitioners statement that he was not given an opportunity to adduce evidence on his behalf or to cross-examine fully the witnesses who deposed against him. It is true that in the order of the S. P. (Annexure D) dated 28-7-1962 he has recorded: "No. D. W. has been examined in this proceeding and no defence statement has been submitted in spite of opportunity afforded for the same", but as the S. P. himself did not hold the departmental enquiry, this statement in his order cannot be believed unless it is supported by anr affidavit by a competent person, or at any rate a copy of the order sheet indicating that the petitioner was called upon to adduce his evidence and that he declined to avail himself of that opportunity is filed. I must, therefore, hold, following the well known decision of the Supreme Court that the rules of natural justice should be observed in departmental proceedings against public servants, that there has been failure to comply substantially with the provisions of Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution. 3 There is another infirmity in the order of the I. G. of Police which should be noticed. 3 There is another infirmity in the order of the I. G. of Police which should be noticed. The acts of misconduct with which the petitioner was charged were not themselves of a very serious nature and hence the S. P. passed only a minor punishment of reduction of his pay by one rupee for three years. The I. G. of Police, however, thought that the punishment was too lenient because the petitioners previous record was bad and that he was in the habit of committing such irregularities. If these were the main grounds for the I. G. of Police to differ from the S. P. so far as the quantum of punishment was concerned, he should have in the further notice issued to the petitioner expressly informed him that his previous conduct would be taken into consideration for the purpose of imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal and he should have been given further opportunity to meet the same. This, however, was not done. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Stale of Mysore V/s. K. Manche Gowda, AIR 1964 SC 506 if the authority concerned wanted to take into consideration the previous bad record of a public servant while passing the order of punishment, the delinquent public servant ought to be informed in the second notice about his previous past record which the authority intends to take into consideration for the purpose of passing the order of punishment. He will then get an opportunity to meet the same. 4. For these reasons, I must hold that the entire departmental proceeding against the petitioner is vitiated due to contravention of the constitutional protection given by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The petition is allowed and the order of the I. G. of Police dismissing the petitioner from service is quashed with costs: bearing fee Rs. 100. Anwar Ahmad, J. 5 I agree.