PRADEEP RAWAT Vs. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of termination of his services and also the order passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, relevant facts lie in a narrow compass that the respondents advertised the vacant post of Police Constable in District-Sagar and as per the selection procedure the written examination was to be conducted by M.P Professional Examination Board (VYAPAM) and after clearing the said written examination, the candidate was required to clear physical examination test which was to be conducted by the respondent no.3. In pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner participated in the police constable written test, 2012 conducted by VYAPAM, Bhopal. He cleared the said examination and also the physical test. By order dated 10.04.2013, he was appointed as Police Constable, Sagar. The petitioner was appointed on probation and his services were terminated by order dated 15.10.2015 by the Superintendent of Police, Sagar in exercise of powers under Regulation 59 of M.P Police Regulations (hereinafter referred in short as "Regulation, 1959").

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid order has been passed in an arbitrary and cryptic manner. He submitted that the formation of opinion of the competent authority that there is no possibility of the petitioner of becoming an efficient Police Officer is arbitrary and without assigning any reason. He submitted that the services of the petitioner has been terminated because of the registration of a criminal case bearing Crime No.16/14 by police station (STF), Bhopal for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC along with Section 3 read with Section 4 of M.P Recognized Examination Act, 1937. In connection with the said offences the petitioner was taken into custody on 23.08.2014. It is submitted that after the arrest the petitioner had applied for the bail and he was enlarged on bail by the High Court. It is further submitted by him that without holding an inquiry or affording any opportunity of hearing, the order impugned has been passed. He further submitted that his case is identical to the case of one Kedar Tyagi whose petition (W.P.No.976/2016) has been allowed by the Division Bench of Gwalior by order dated 20.10.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that if veil is lifted, it would be clear that the impugned order has been passed merely on the ground of registration of the aforesaid criminal case and the order is stigmatic in nature.