Mahendra Yadav vs State of U.P. and Others

Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Shrawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rama Nand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the respondent No. 2, by which the services of the petitioner has been dispensed with.

It appears that in pursuance of the selection made in the year 1995, the petitioner was under going training. It also appears that during the course of training, the petitioner has to appear in quarterly examination. The petitioner appeared in the examination on 1.2.1995. It was found that the petitioner instead of writing the answer sheet himself, got it written by someone else. In respect of the aforesaid charges, the petitioner has been issued show-cause notice dated 17.4.1995 alleging that the petitioner instead of writing the answer sheet himself, got it written by one Sri Surendra Kumar, which amounts to misconduct. It is further stated that he was found failed in all subjects. In the said show-cause notice, the petitioner has been asked to file the reply. The petitioner filed the reply on 22.4.1995. Another show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner on 26.4.1995. It appears that instead of passing the order under Regulation 541(2) of the U.P. Police Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "Regulation"), the respondent has terminated the services of the petitioner under U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rule, 1975") after giving a month''s notice vide order dated 2.5.1995. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of Writ Petition No. 22347 of 1995. This Court vide order dated 5.3.2013 has allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 2.6.1995 on the ground that Rule, 1975 does not apply to the police personnel and the provision of Police Act, 1861 and the Police Regulations will apply. However, learned Single Judge has observed; "needless to say that this Court has not expressed its view on the merit of the case. The appropriate authority shall take the decision independently in accordance with law." Now the impugned order has been passed under Regular 541(2) of Regulation and dispensed with the services of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is wholly illegal. He submitted that after the order dated 2.6.1995, being quashed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner has been reinstated in service on 3.8.2013 and, therefore, for the termination of the service, the respondents should have issued fresh show-cause notice under Regulation 541(2) and without giving any such notice, the impugned order is illegal.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner had been issued show-cause notice wherein the charges against the petitioner were mentioned. The petitioner filed the reply to the show-cause notice. Instead of adjudicating the allegations made in the show-cause notice and the reply given by the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 has dispensed with the services of the petitioner vide order dated 2.5.1995 under Rule, 1975. The proceeding, which was initiated by issuing show-cause notice has not been culminated by any order and now by the impugned order the said proceeding has been culminated. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that a fresh notice should be issued under the Regulation, is not justified.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

Police Regulation 541 reads as follows:

(1) A recruit will be on probation from the date he begins to officiate in a clear vacancy. The period of probation will be two years except in the following cases:

(a) those recruited directly in the Criminal Investigation Department or District Intelligence Staff will be on probation for three years, and

(b) those transferred to the Mounted police will be governed by the directions in paragraph 84 of the Police Regulation.

If at the end of the period of probation conduct and work have been satisfactory and the recruit has been approved by the Deputy Inspector General of Police for service in the force, the Superintendent of Police will confirm him in his appointment.

(2) In any case in which either during or at the end of the period of probation, the Superintendent of Police is of opinion that a recruit is unlikely to make a good police officer he may dispense with his service. Before, however, this is done the recruit must be supplied with specific complaints and grounds on which it is proposed to discharge him and then he should be called upon the show-cause as to why he should not be discharged. The recruit must furnish his representation in writing and it will be duly considered by the Superintendent of Police before passing the orders of discharge.

The petitioner has been given show-cause notice dated 17.4.1995, annexure-2 to the writ petition, which reads as follows:

It appears that in pursuance of the show-cause notice, no order has been passed by the respondent No. 2. It also appears that the respondent No. 2 found it convenient to dispense with services of the petitioner under Rule, 1975 by order dated 2.5.1995, which was found illegal and without jurisdiction and accordingly, the same has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 5.3.2013.

The proceeding initiated by issuing the show-cause notice, remained pending and no order has been passed on the consideration of show-cause notice and reply on merit. On the basis of the show-cause notice and the reply filed by the petitioner, now by the impugned order, the service of the petitioner has been dispensed with under Regulation 541(2).

On the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that no fresh show-cause notice was required. The impugned order has been passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the impugned order, the charges against the petitioner and the reply filed by the petitioner, have been considered. The petitioner has tried to explain that why the answer sheet was found on the table of other examinee, namely, Surendra Kumar. The said explanation has not been accepted and has rightly so. Even it is assumed that the petitioner had a headache and answer sheet has fallen down from his hand but it is not explained that how the answer sheet has been reached on the table of other examinee, namely, Surendra Kumar. Secondly, in the show-cause notice, it is clearly stated that the petitioner has failed in all the subjects. This fact has not been disputed in the reply by the petitioner to the show-cause notice. Once the petitioner was failed in all the subjects he could not be allowed to continue in service. The conduct of the petitioner was such that he could not be said to be suitable to continue in police service. Police force is a disciplined force. The conduct of the police personnel should be impeccable, full of integrity and disciplined. The person who does not possess such conduct cannot be allowed to continue in service.

In view of the above discussion, the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. The impugned order has been passed after following the proper procedure contemplated in Regulation 541(2) referred herein above.

On the facts and circumstances, the Court declines to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly dismissed.