RAMESH CHANDRA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner, a Constable was removed from the serious by the Superintendent of Police, Saran, Chhapra under Order No. 43 of the 2003 observing that the very appointment of the petitioner was illegal and he could not be continued in the services. Challenging the said order the petitioner came to this Court in C.W. J.C. No. 1422 of 2003 but, however, withdrew the writ application with the liberty to prefer an appeal. He preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chhapra on 3-6-2003. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come to this Court inter alia submitting that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1988 on a temporary post by the Superintendent of Police, who was competent to issue temporary appointment under paragraph 667 of the Police Manual and as the petitioner was not at fault or did not commit any lapse and as no action has been taken against the then Director General of Police or the then Superintendent of Police, who had made the recommendations or issued the appointments orders, the petitioner could not be removed from the services.

(3.) After hearing the parties, certain facts which are undisputed are required to be mentioned. It is undisputed that the Assistant of the Director General of Police vide his letter dated 8-9-1988 made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Saran that the Director General of Police has required the said Superintendent of Police to issue an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner on compassionate ground. From Annexures-4 and 5 it would clearly appear that not only the Assistant of the Director General of Police but the Deputy Inspector General of Police also made recommendations to the Superintendent of Police, Saran. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Saran, Chhapra vide his order dated 1-8-1989 contained in Annexure-6 directed appointment of the petitioner on temporary post clearly stating that the order be issued in view of the directions issued by the Director General of Police to give compassionate appointment. Undisputedly the petitioner did not undergo or take any examinations but has been appointed on the basis of the recommendations made by the Director General of Police, that too on the ground that father of the petitioner was keeping ill-health and he was proposing his voluntary retirement and being influenced by these facts or whatever else, the Director General of Police directed the Superintendent of Police, Saran, Chhapra to issue appointment orders. It is contended that the petitioner was not appointed on the strength of the recommendations made by the Director General of Police nor he was on compassionate appointment but in fact in accordance with paragraph 667 of the Police Manual, the petitioner was given temporary appointment.