DEVA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable by the Superintendent of Police, District Sirohi, on probation for a period of two years by order dated November 21, 1974. He joined as a Police Constable on November 25, 1974. As his work was not satisfactory, his probation period was extended for three months with effect from November 25, 1976 and it was mentioned in the order that if he does not improve his conduct and work during the extended period of probation of three months, his services were liable to be terminated without notice. This order has been filed and marked as Ex. 2. THEreafter, period of probation was further extended upto August 24, 1977. On September 9, 1977, an order (Ex. 3) was passed in which it was stated that even after the expiry of the period of probation of two years, till the date of issuance of the order, the conduct, behaviour and work of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory and, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under rule 36 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 (for short, 'the Rules' hereafter), the petitioner was discharged from service with immediate effect. A representation was submitted by the petitioner on September 23, 1977 to the Dy. Inspector of Police. THEreafter, second representation was also submitted on August 28,1978. In reply to that, the Deputy Inspector of Police, (vide Ex. 6), informed the petitioner that his representation for taking him on duty has not been accepted. THE petitioner has filed this writ petition praying that an appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued for quashing the impugned order Ex. 3 dated September 9. 1977 and that the respondents may be directed to re-instate the petitioner on the post of Constable and that he may be declared to be confirmed with all consequential benefits with regard to pay, seniority, promotion etc. , as if the order Ex. 3 has never been passed.

(2.) SHOW cause notice was issued to the respondents. In pursuance of that, the respondents have filed reply to the writ petition alongwith four documents (Anxs. Rl to R4 ). It was stated by the respondents that during the period of probation, the petitioner had not worked satisfactorily and remained wilfully absent from duty on several occasions. In support of this, relevant extract of the Service Roll (Anx. Rl) was filed. It is further stated that on October 30, 1976, the concerned Station House Officer, Erenpura, by his memo No. 3060 dated October 30, 1976 reported that the petitioner wilfully remained absent and was found negligent to his duties. In this connection, a copy of memo marked Anx. R2 was submitted. According to the respondents, the order Anx. 3 does not suffer from any infirmity and is in accordance with the Rules.

(3.) AS the order discharging the petitioner from service is clearly in accordance with rule 36 (1) of the Rules and as Art. 311 is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case, the order Ex. 3 cannot be said to be illegal and invalid.