For the making of such representation and for violating the prohibitory order, an enquiry was companyducted against the three appellants who had taken initiative and led the procession, making a charge that they were guilty of grave misconduct under Rule 16 2 of the Punjab Police Rules which is held to have been proved resultantly, they were dismissed from service.
The admitted facts are that three appellants along with 27 others had gone in a procession, in spite of the prohibitory order, to represent, to the Superintendent of Police at his residence, their grievance of inadequate accommodation and other facilities number provided to them.
Thereafter, the appellants filed suit for declaration that the order of dismissal was null and void and inoperative the suit was decreed on April 7, 1979.
In the second appeal, the High Court reversed the decisions and dismissed the suit.
On appeal, it was dismissed on February 20, 1980.
The order of dismissal was companyfirmed on appeal.
We have heard learned companynsel on both sides.
It is true that the appellants are disciplined members of the police force.
That was done after their duty was over in the evening.
Leave granted.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
