R C ROY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legality of the termination of the temporary employment of the petitioner by one month's notice dated 29-7-1967 (Annexure H to the writ petition) is challenged in this writ petition D as being contrary to Article 311(2) of the Constitution under the following circumstances: Recruitment to the Central Reserve Police Force is made by the Central Government under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Central Reserve Police Force Rules. 1955 framed thereunder (hereinafter called the Rules). Under Rule 16 all members of the Force shall be enrolled for a period of three years. At the end of the period, those not given substantive status or not declared as quasi-permanent shall continue as temporary employees liable to be discharged on one month's notice. Rule 108 is as follows:

(2.) An offer of appointment was made to the petitioner by Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 22-4-1963 (Annexure A to the writ petition) and the petitioner was appointed by the Secretary, Ministy of Home Affairs on 30th May 1963 (Annexure R/B to the written statement) as the Deputy Superintendent of Police (CompanyCommander) in the Central Reserve Police in a temporary capacity. The work of the petitioner received unfavourable comments on 21-4-1965. 8-6-1965. 2-4-1966. 3-5-1966 and 20-5-1966.

(3.) The petitioner was posted as Quarter Master, 14th Battalion. Central Reserve Police, Ajmci- by the Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police, in the first week of December 1966. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police, Ajmer (Respondent No. 3) requested the Inspector General of Police not to post the petitioner to Ajmer as the Deputy Inspector General of Police was not satisfied with the previous work of the petitioner and was not willing to take him as Quarter Master. The Inspector General of Police, however, did not change his orders and the petitioner was posted as a Quarter Master at Ajmer. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Respondent No. 3) inspected the work of the petitioner as a Quarter Master and commented very unfavourably on his work in a memorandum dated 26-3-1967 addressed to the Inspector General of Police. An extract of this memorandum was communicated to the petitioner who offered his explanation to the Inspector General of Police. An unfavourable assessment of the work of the petitioner for the year 1966-67 by the Inspector General of Police was communicated to him on 12-6-1967 (Annexure D to the writ petition) and was replied to by the petitioner on 4-7-1967. On 29-7-1967, the services of the petitioner were terminated by one month's notice which was as follows: