MAHENDRA YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shrawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rama Nand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the respondent no.2, by which the services of the petitioner has been dispensed with.

(3.) It appears that in pursuance of the selection made in the year 1995, the petitioner was under going training. It also appears that during the course of training, the petitioner has to appear in quarterly examination. The petitioner appeared in the examination on 01.02.1995. It was found that the petitioner instead of writing the answer sheet himself, got it written by someone else. In respect of the aforesaid charges, the petitioner has been issued show cause notice dated 17.04.1995 alleging that the petitioner instead of writing the answer sheet himself, got it written by one Sri Surendra Kumar, which amounts to misconduct. It is further stated that he was found failed in all subjects. In the said show cause notice, the petitioner has been asked to file the reply. The petitioner filed the reply on 22.4.1995. Another show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner on 26.04.1995. It appears that instead of passing the order under Regulation 541 (2) of the U.P. Police Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "Regulation"), the respondent has terminated the services of the petitioner under U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rule, 1975") after giving a month's notice vide order dated 02.05.1995. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of Writ Petition No.22347 of 1995. This Court vide order dated 05.03.213 has allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 02.06.1995 on the ground that Rule, 1975 does not apply to the police personnel and the provision of Police Act, 1861 and the Police Regulations will apply. However, learned Single Judge has observed; "needless to say that this Court has not expressed its view on the merit of the case. The appropriate authority shall take the decision independently in accordance with law." Now the impugned order has been passed under Regular 541 (2) of Regulation and dispensed with the services of the petitioner.