BAIRAGI RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a special appeal from the judgment, dated August 23, 1963, of a learned single Judge dismissing the appellants petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notice, dated 20th May 1961, by which respondent No. 3 terminated the services of the appellant and for ordering the respondents to treat the appellant as continuing In service.

(2.) SRI Bairagi Ram, the appellant, was recruited as a temporary Sub-Inspector by the respondent No. 3 on 1st January, 1956. It appears that while he was posted at Police Station, Goshainganj, he was suspended on a charge of illegal detention of a person at the police station and tried departmentally under Section 7 of the Police Act but subsequently he was reinstated and the proceedings were dropped. In 1961 he was posted as Second Officer at Police Station, Pisawan. The Deputy Inspector- General of Police, Lucknow Range, Lucknow, namely, respondent No. 3 on the occasion of his winter inspection in 1961 made an adverse entry against the appellant in the following words:--"S.-I. Bairagi Ram who was enlisted on 1-1-1956 is posted as 2nd officer, P. S. Pisawan, in spite of reprimand at my last inspection; the S. P. reports that this S.-I. has not yet settled down to hard and honest work. He is being finally warned for removal from service if In the next three months he does not get a clean chit from the S. P."

(3.) THE learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the order of termination in the instant case was not a camouflaged order and was not accordingly violative of Article 313 of the Constitution. On the other question raised by the appellant the finding of the learned single Judge is that so long as the appellant continued to be a temporary government servant his services were liable to termination by one month's notice or on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice without considering the question of juniority or seniority and hence there was no question of any discrimination or the order being violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In view of the said findings the learned single Judge dismissed the petition. Hence, the petitioner has come up in appeal.