DINESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.8.2007 passed by the respondent no. 8, whereby his selection on the post of constable ( Provincial Armed Constabulary ) has been cancelled.

(2.) I have heard Sri Vijay Gautam learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) APART from the said form, the candidate was required to submit an affidavit also. The said affidavit is a proforma affidavit. Paragraphs 3, 7, 9 and 15 of the affidavit are with regard to the pendency of the cases and the character. The petitioner has sworn the affidavit that no criminal case was pending against him. The petitioner has not only made a false declaration in his application, he has also submitted a false affidavit with regard to the pendency of the case. Sri Vijay Gautam submitted that the impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice as no show cause notice has been given to him. He further submits that Regulation 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations requires that before termination/dismissal, an explanation must be called for from the employee during the probation period. For the sake of convenience, the aforesaid Regulation is quoted hereunder ; "541- (i) A recruit will be on probation from the date he begins to officiate in a clear vacancy. The period of probation will be two years except in the following cases: (a) those recruited directly in the Criminal Investigation Department or District Intelligence Staff will be on probation for three years, and (b) those transferred to the Mounted Police will be governed by the directions in paragraph 84 of the Police Regulations.