CHANDUBHAI BIJALBHAI SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17th October 1985 terminating the services of the petitioner and has further prayed to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service, with all benefits including back wages.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis as an Un-armed Police Constable by an order dated 1st March 1983, which was published in the Police Gazette dated 3rd March 1983. After the appointment, the petitioner was sent for training at P.T.S., Baroda and on successful completion of the training, the petitioner was posted at the Ellisbridge Police Station, Ahmedabad, by an order, which was published in the Police Gazette dated 2nd November 1983. Respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 17th October 1985 terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from the date of receipt of that order. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation to the Commissioner of Police for taking the petitioner back in service. In reply to the above referred representation of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Police informed the petitioner by a letter dated 2nd December 1985 that during an enquiry it was found that the petitioner had given a wrong Certificate regarding his date of birth at the time of recruitment, and, therefore, the order of termination did not require any change. According to the petitioner, he was not heard by the respondents before coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had given a wrong Certificate regarding his date of birth at the time of recruitment and, therefore, the impugned order of termination dated 17th October 1985 being penal in nature and violative of principles of natural justice requires to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition and has claimed the reliefs, which have been stated hereinabove.

(3.) An Affidavit-in-Reply on behalf of the respondents, has been filed by Mr. Mohan Jha, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Administration, stating, inter alia, that the petitioner at the time of his recruitment in the year 1983 had produced a School Leaving Certificate in support of his age and the said School Leaving Certificate revealed that the date of birth of the petitioner was 25th July 1962 and thus, the petitioner had attained the age of 18 years, but had not completed 22 years of age and, therefore, as the petitioner was found eligible, the petitioner was recruited to the post of Constable. It is mentioned in the Affidavit-in-Reply that the office of the Commissioner of Police received an anonymous complaint in the year 1985 to the effect that the petitioner had produced a false School Leaving Certificate and that the petitioner had never studied in Janseva High School and had studied in Samuhik Kendra Shala. It is stated in the Reply that pursuant to the above-referred complaint, an investigation was made and as a result of the said investigation, it was learnt that the date of birth of the petitioner was 25th July 1959 and thus, the petitioner had completed 22 years of age on 24th July 1981 and as the petitioner was not eligible for appointment as a Constable, the petitioner was required to be discharged from service, and therefore, by an order dated 17th October 1985 the petitioner was discharged from service in accordance with the terms of his appointment. The deponent has further stated that the provisions made in Rule 33 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules do not apply to the police force and as the impugned order is not penal in nature and as the petitioner's service is not sought to be terminated on account of any misconduct, it was not necessary to hear the petitioner.