SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23-11-1992, passed by the Respon dent No. 4 whereby the services of the petitioner as Constabulary in 8th Battalian, Pradeshik Armed Constable were ter minated. Another prayer for a writ of man damus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as Constable in 8th Battalian, Pradeshik Armed Constabulary, Bareilly and for pay ment of his regular salary month to month have also been made.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief, as set out in the writ petition are that the petitioner was recruited in accordance with the relevant Rules and appointed in 8th Battalian Armed Constabulary at Bareilly on 1- 9-1990. He was therefore, sent for one year's training which he has completed suc cessfully. THE petitioner was served with a notice dated 19-11-1992 to file his explana tion with regard to the allegations of mis conduct (absence from duty). THE said notice was issued on the basis of the com plaint made by the brother of the local M.L.A. and a First Information Report was also lodged against him. Reply of the said notice was submitted by the petitioner bat instead of proceeding further in accordance with Rules, his services were terminated by the impugned order dated 23-11-1992 by way of punishment. THE petitioner there after filed the present petition challenging the validity of the said order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner was appointed on probation and after comple tion of probation he shall be deemed to have been confirmed on the aforesaid post. Therefore, his services could not be ter minated in exercise of powers under the U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termina tion of Services) Rules, 1975 and alterna tively it has been submitted that even if the petitioner is stated to be on probation, his services could not be terminated without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 541 of U.P. Police Regulations, which are applicable in the present case. He sub mits that the procedure prescribed under the said regulation has not been followed, therefore, the order of termination in exer cise of powers of Termination Rules, 1975 is illegal and invalid. In support of his conten tion the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the decision in Pramod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P and others, 1991 ALR 610; Dr. (Mrs.) SumatiP. Sherev. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC \43l;Acharji Tiwari v. Zila GannaAdhikari and another, 1992 (2) UPLBEC 793; G.B. Pant Agricultural and Technology University v. KeshoRao, (1994) 4 SCC 437.