RANA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Plaintiff's second appeal the only controversy that survives for consideration is if the discharge from service of Appellant, a police constable, was by way of punishment or in accordance with service rules. It has been found that Appellant was appointed as constable in 1963 against whom proceedings under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and Section 5(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were taken but the Investigating Officer submitted a final report in 1967 as the evidence was not sufficient for submission of charge -sheet. It appears the Appellant was discharged from service on same day. He filed an appeal but it was dismissed by Deputy Inspector General of Police. He repelled the contention of Appellant that discharge was by way of punishment. It was observed that the action was not taken against him because of any departmental proceedings but because his services were no longer required. And as he could apply, subsequently, it did not cast any stigma on him. In Civil Court the Appellant claimed that he was appointed on probation and the period of probation having expired he became a permanent employee. It was also claimed that under police regulations he could not be appointed temporarily. Reliance was placed on various paragraphs of Police Regulations. But the appellate Court repelled these contentions on strength of a Full Bench decision in Nanak Chand v. State of U.P., 1971 AWR 431. Although the submissions were reiterated by Appellant who appeared in person but it is devoid of any substance.

(2.) BUT the services of temporary employees also enjoy the protection of Article 311 of Constitution of India. In Nepal Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1980 SC 1456, it was held:

(3.) ON 7 -1 -1967 a note was submitted to District Magistrate that the recommendation of S.P. for accepting final report be accepted as the investigation by the CI revealed that there was truth in the allegations but that prosecution cannot be successful for want of sufficient evidence (Paper No. 47K/8). On 10th January the report was accepted and the following order was passed on 16th January, 1967 on Paper No. 47/Ka/8,