Decided on April 17,2012

State of Uttarakhand and others Appellant
Ex Recruit Constable Mohd. Fahreen Respondents


Barin Ghosh, C. J. - (1.) THERE is no dispute inter se the parties that there is a Police Regulation and clause (2) of Regulation 541 thereof provides as follows: (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 to 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. While, during the probation of the respondent, his services were dispensed with; admittedly, before the same was done, respondent was not supplied with specific complaints and grounds on which it was proposed to discharge him, nor he was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be discharged and, accordingly, no occasion arose for the respondent to furnish his representation.
(2.) THAT was the basic reason for which the Tribunal has interfered with the order that was passed to dispense with the services of the respondent. There is one more aspect of the matter, for which, certain facts are needed to be taken into account. In the order, dispensing with the services of the respondent, it was stated that, at the time when the said order was passed, respondent was a probationer for two months. It was alleged that, on the date mentioned in the said order, respondent was asked to discharge his duties at a place, but, leaving the place of his duty, respondent went to a house situated about 100 paces away from the place of his duty and molested / tried to molest a lady residing in the said house. It was also alleged that, in connection with the said incident, a First Information Report was lodged and, in course of investigation pursuant to the said First Information Report, respondent was arrested. Those were the allegations by which specific complaints and grounds, on which it was proposed to discharge the respondent, were highlighted in the order dispensing with the services of the respondent. The Tribunal noted that the investigation, pursuant to the First Information Report, resulted in filing of a charge -sheet, whereon, a charge was framed and the respondent was exonerated by the court of such charge.
(3.) IN the present writ petition, the State is contending that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as are admitted on record, the Tribunal erred in directing reinstatement of the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that clause (2) of Regulation 541 of the Police Regulations has a statutory flavour and, admittedly, there was non -compliance of that part of clause (2) of Regulation 541, which mandated compliance of natural justice. It was submitted that, without giving a show cause and permitting the respondent to make a representation against the same, the power to dispense with the services of the respondent could not be exercised, inasmuch as, requirement to comply with the direction to issue a show cause and to consider the representation against such show cause is a pre -condition for exercise of power to dispense with services. The learned counsel further submitted that, in the body of the petition itself, the State has sought for an opportunity to deal with the matter departmentally. The learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that, in the circumstances, this Court should not interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.