UMA SHANKER RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of his removal from service as contained in Annexure 7. This order, issued by the Supdt, of Police, Muzaffarpur, the 1st respondent, states that the petitioner's appointment as constable was subject to verification regarding his satisfactory antecedents. On enquiry, however, it was found that the petitioner was accused in Sehar P.S. Case No. 11(2)80 for various offences including one under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and in Sahar P. S. Case No. 168/83 for a number of offences including those under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He was accordingly removed from service. The other impugned orders are those passed by the Superior officers on appeal and representations filed by the petitioner against the order of his removal from service. This culminated in the order dated 29-7-1989 (contained in Annexure 4) passed by the Director General of Police, respondent No. 5 who finally confirmed the petitioner's removal from service.

(2.) The facts are few and without controversy. By communication dated 5-5-1985 a copy whereof is contained in Annexure-5, the petitioner was informed that he had been selected for appointment on the temporary post of constable and advising him to present himself for a medical check up at the New Police line, Muzaffarpur. It was clearly stated in this communication that on being medically found fit, he will be appointed on purely them-porary basis and in case of any adverse report re lating to his antecedents this appointment letter dated 23-5-1985, a copy whereof is contained in Annexure-6 whereby the petitioner was appointed as constable on a purely temporary basis. The appointment letter also reiterated that the appointment was subject to the condition that the same would be cancelled without assingning any reason in case any adverse report was received on verification of this antecedents.

(3.) By notice dated 20-1-1986, the petitioner was informed that on enquiry it came to light that in Sahar P. S. Case Nos. 11(2)80 and 168/83 the police had submitted charge sheets naming the petitioner as one of the accused. His appointment being subject to the condition of having satisfactory antecedents, the petitioner was required to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. It is stated that the petitioner filed a show cause but a copy of it has not been enclosed with the writ petition. This was followed by the order of removal from service a copy whereof is contained in Annexure-7. As indicated above, the removal order states that the petitioner's appointment was subject to a satisfactory verification of his antecedents. An enquiry, however, revealed that he was charge sheeted in Sahar P. S. Case Nos. 11(2)80 and 168/83. He was accordingly being removed from service. On appeal and representations this order was confirmed by the hierarchy of the superior officers, namely, Dy. Inspector General of Police, respondent No. 3 vide order dated 14-11-1987 (Annexure-2) ; Regional Inspector General of Police, respondent No. 4 vide order dated 26-8-1988 (Annexure-3) ; and finally by the Director General of Police, respondent No. 5 vide his order dated 29-7-1989 (Annexure-4).