STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. MOHAMMED MURTUZA KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the State of West Bengal is the appellant seek ing to set aside an order of the Court below dated August 26, 1968 (T. K. Basu, J.) by which the order of dis charge terminating the services of the respondent, dated February 9, 1965 (annexure B of the Paper Book) was quashed, with leave to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner again according to law, if so advised.

(2.) THE respondent was appointed a sub-inspector of police in the Calcutta police by an order dated December 11, 1963, which is to be found at annexure a to the Paper Book. It was stated therein that he was to be on, probation for a period of two years. The period of two years' probation follows also from the statutory provision in Rule. 19 of the Calcutta Suburban Police (Sub ordinate Ranks Recruitment, Conditions of Service and Discipline) Rules, 19)32, which have been framed under the Calcutta Police Act in respect of members of the subordinate ranks of the Police Forces. That the petitioner was a probationer and that he was dis charged before completion of the period of probation are not disputed in this case. The order of discharge, however, did not state any grounds excepting that the services of the petitioner were "no longer required" and one month's remuneration in lieu of notice was offered to the petitioner. In the Court below, the order of discharge was challenged primarily on two grounds, (1) that the provisions in the statutory Rules, namely, Rule 19 (3) of the Calcutta Suburban Police Rules referred to earlier as well as Rule 55-B of the Civil Services (Classification, cantrol and Appeal) Rules, 1930 were not complied with inasmuch as the order did not state any grounds for terminating the services of the proba tioner and (2) that the requirements of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution were not complied with. The Court below held in favour of the Petitioner, on both points.

(3.) SO far as Rule 55-B of the Civil services Rules of 1930 are concerned, it has been pointed out on behalf of the appellant that this is not attracted to the case of the petitioner or the members of the Police Force who are gov erned by the Rules of 1962 by reason of the provisions in Rule 3a of the Civiil services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1930 which says thai "those Rules will not apply to persons for whose appointment and conditions of employment special provision is made by or under any law for the time being in force". It is evident that the rules of 1962 are special Rules mads for the Police Forces under the statutory power conferred by the Calcutta police Act. If so, to those police officers who are governed by the 1962 rules, the general Rules in the Civil services Rules of 1930 will not apply.