GURDEV SINGH SIDHU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition which has been filed by the petitioner S. Gurdev Singh Sidhu under Art. 32 of the Constitution, challenges the validity of Article 9 (1) of the Pepsu Services Regulations, Volume I, as amended by the Governor of Punjab by the notification issued by him on the 19th January, 1960 in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and all other powers enabling him in that behalf. The petitioner's contention is that the said article contravenes the constitutional right guaranteed to the persons employed in civil capacities either under the Union or the State, by Art. 316.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Superintendent of Police in the erstwhile Patiala State by His Highness, Maharaja Adhiraj of Patiala on the 4th of February, 1942. The conditions of his service were governed by the Patiala State Service Regulations which had been issued by the Ruler of Patiala State who was at the relevant time the sovereign legislature of the State. Later, the petitioner was confirmed in the rank on the occurrence of a regular vacancy after he had undergone practical district training course in Punjab in 1947. On the formation of Patiala and East Punjab States Union on the 20th August, 1948,the petitioner was integrated in Pepsu Police Service. In due course, he was promoted to officiate as Superintendent of Police in February, 1950 by His Highness, the Rajpramukh of the erstwhile State of Pepsu.

(3.) On the 25th March, 1963, respondent No. 2 S. Gurdial Singh ,Inspector General of Police and Joint Secretary to the Government of Punjab, issued a notice against the petitioner purporting to act under the second proviso to Article 9.1 of the Pepsu Services Regulations to show cause why he should not be compulsorily retired. The petitioner alleges that the second proviso to Article 9.1 under which the said notice has been issued against him, is invalid, and so, he has moved this Court under Art. 32 for quashing the said notice on the ground that the article on which it is based is itself ultra vires and inoperative. Respondent No. 1, the State of Punjab, and respondent No. 2 have by their counter-affidavit denied the petitioner's contention that the impugned Article 9.1 is constitutionally invalid and they have resisted his claim for quashing the notice issued by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner. That is how the only point which arises for our decision in the present petition is whether the impugned article is shown to be constitutionally invalid.