CHAMAN LAL SETH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which has been filed in the following circumstances: The petitioner was formerly in the police service in Sind, now West Pakistan. In 1947, at the time of partition he came to the United Provinces, and on the 20th August, 1949, he was appointed a Sub-Inspector in the United Provinces Police on probation for two years from the date of joining the force. This he did on the 31st August, 1949. The letter of appointment read as follows:--

(2.) I have now heard the petition on its merits and learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced two contentions first that the provisions of para 537 of the Police Regulations have no application to the petitioner and, secondly that, if that regulation is applicable, there has been no compliance with the mandatory provisions of Article 311 (a) of the Constitution.

(3.) Paragraph 537 is in Chap. XXXVI of the Police Regulations. This chapter provides for the training of sub-inspectors and para 534 provides that sub-inspectors of the Civil Police must pass through the Provincial Police Training College. The provisions of this chapter appear to contemplate that the sub-inspectors to whom it refers will be either such persons as have been appointed sub-inspectors by direct recruitment of officers of lower rank who have been specially selected for the police Training College course. Paragraph 537 then provides that a Sub-Inspector on probation may be confirmed in his appointment by the Deputy Inspector General after the expiry of the probationary period of two years. It further provides that a Deputy Inspector General may on his own authority discharge the probationary Sub-Inspector who was selected for the Police Training College course by direct recruitment, but that, inter alia, the probationary Sub-Inspector against whom an order of discharge is likely to be passed must be supplied in writing with the specific complaints and grounds on which he deserves punishment and that he should be called upon to show cause why he should not be so punished.