MAHIPAL SINGH MANN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has impugned the order dated September 28, 1987 passed by respondent No. 1 dispensing with his services in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) FACTS first :the petitioner was appointed to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police by respondent No. I vide order contained in memorandum No. 1027-1h (I)-86/6215 dated February 28, 1986. The order provided that he would remain on probation for a period of two years with effect from the date of his appointment and if during the period of probation in the opinion of the appointing authority his work and conduct was not found satisfactory, the latter could dispense with his services without notice or could extend the probation period for another year. Before the expiry of the period of probation, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with since his work and conduct was not found to be satisfactory. The order under which the services of the petitioner were dispensed with reads thus :

(3.) THE respondents have denied the allegations and stated that the order dispensing with the services of the petitioner had been passed strictly in accordance with the order of appointment containing terms and conditions on which offer of appointment was made.