K.P.Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner's father Sitar Ram Yadav was. a police constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police Force. After his death, the petitioner on completion of training at the Training Centre, Bahraich, was posted on duty at Bahraich from December, 1986 to 23-3-1987. From 23-3-1987 to 2-7- 1987 the petitioner was performing his duty at Azamgarh where his services have been terminated through annexure V dated 2-7-1987 attached with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE main prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is for quashing the order dated 2-7-1987 and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with immediate effect as police constable and to pay his all arrears of salary from 2-7-1987. Other general reliefs have also been claimed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the present writ petition on the ground of parity. According to him services of Mahendra Singh, Tej Bahadur Singh and Sumer Prasad were also terminated through the order dated 2-7-1987 as allegedly they all used unfair means at the time of examination and they have been taken in service as their claims have been allowed by the public services Tribunal through its order dated 2-9-1988 contained in Annexure I to the supplementary affidavit. Second contentition raised on- behalf of the petitioner before us is that though the order dated 2-7-1987 contained in Annexure V attached with the writ petition is in innocuous words but in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is by way of punishment and the aforesaid order has been passed against the petitioner without affording him, reasonable opportunity to defend himself therefore, the order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed on the ground that it is violative of the principles of natural justice and fair play.
(3.) THE third contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in view of G. O. contained in Annexure IV attached with the writ petition, the petitioner was required to appear at the physical examination and interview and was not required to appear at any other examination, therefore, the termination of the petitioner's services on the alleged ground of using unfair means is wholly immaterial and irrelevant in the present case. ? The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has tried to justify the termination of the petitioner's services on the ground that the petitioner was found using unfair means at the examination and on that ground when he has not been considered as suitable for being retained in the Uttar Pradesh Police Force. No exception can be taken to the order contained in Annexure V. It has been asserted that if the conduct of the petitioner is taken into account in terminating his services, it is only motive and not foundation of the order, therefore, the petitioner's writ petition should be dismissed. In this connection the learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance upon the rulings reported in 1979 Supreme Court cases Vol. II, page 111 State of U. P. v. Bhoop Singh Verma and the ruling reported in 1981 (2) SCC 761 Union of India v. P. S. Bhatt wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court vide Para 9 have indicated that even if misconduct, negligence inefficiency may be the motive or the inducing factor which influences the authority to terminate the services of the employee on probation, such termination cannot be termed as penalty or punishment and, therefore, Article 311 would not be attracted.;