LAWS(J&K)-1988-8-15

KULBIR SINGH SAINI Vs. STATE OF J&K

Decided On August 10, 1988
Kulbir Singh Saini Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the State Constitution has been filed challenging the order of termination of the services of the petitioner bearing No. 453 of 1986 issued on February 12, 1986 from District Police office, Jammu under the signatures of respondent No.2 A father prayer is also made for the insurance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner in service with effect from the date of the impugned order and to grant any other appropriate relief to which he may be held entitled.

(2.) IT is stated that the petitioner applied in response to the Advertisement issued by respondents for the post of Mechanical Fitter Turner in the year 1984 Additional Inspector General of police (JR), Jammu on the said application direct Supdt. of police, Transport workshop, Jammu by his order dated May 11,1984 bearing No. 8924 -25/GE to test the petitioner in the workshops for a period of seven day no order of appointment was issued, however, after waiting for almost two years, by. Supdt. of police by his order No. 49 of 1985 dated January 7, 1986 appoint the petitioner as constables and he was granted No, 1825 in the order of appointment. Further in the said order, it is mentioned that he was appointed on a clear vacancy as Constable and was directed to remain on probation for a period of three years. Surprisingly respondent No. 2 -Senior Superintendent of police, Jammu by his order No. 300 -G -8/GB dated February 12, 1986 removed the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is unlikely to become a good police official. His services, however, were terminated with immediate effect without any enquiry and giving the petitioner an opportunity of showing cause or of hearing giving rise to the present petition.

(3.) THE petition is contested by the respondent If is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed on a clear vacancy on probation for a period of three years under the order of appointment dated January 7, 1986, however, the protection is claimed for the removal of the petitioner under Rule 187 of J&K police Rules contained in police Manual and contended that respondent No. 2 was competent enough to issue such an order. It is also contended that Rule 187 referred hereinabove does not contemplate a prior notice nor necessitates any enquiry in the matter The stigma of writing in the order that the petitioner is un -becoming of police official is justified on the ground that the said rule empowers so, if it is found that the delinquent is an likely to become a police official, the power under the said rule can be invoked.