AMAR NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

(2.) The Petitioner was appointed as Police Constable by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi on 1.7.1980.After undergoing training, he was posted at Varanasi. While posted at Varanasi, he was involved in criminal offence punishable under Section 364/368 IPC. Petitioner's services were terminated by innocuous order on 11.1.1985. The order of terminated was the subject matter of dispute before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal. A plea was taken before the Tribunal by the Petitioner that he was appointed against regular vacancy and his services could not have been terminated by a simplicitor order. A further plea was taken that the foundation of the order of termination was the involvement of the Petitioner in the criminal case which resulted into acquittal. Hence, the termination order also does not survive.

(3.) Petitioner's counsel submitted that the Petitioner shall be deemed to be on probation and termination of service in violation of Regulation 541 of U.P. Police Regulations, could not have been done.