Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE Petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the impugned order of termination dated 17.11.1999 by which his services have been dispensed with w.e.f. date of notice on the ground that his services were no longer required. The backdrop of the case is that Petitioner was appointed on the temporary post of Constable vide order dated 12.11.1998. He was required to submit an affidavit mentioning therein as to whether any criminal case was pending against him. It appears that while filling of the form for selection, the Petitioner had concealed the fact that a criminal case against him under Section 323/34, 504/506 IPC and under Section 3(I) (X) of SC/ST Act was pending before IInd Additional District Judge, Mainpuri. After swearing of the affidavit he made interpolation incorporating the fact about pendency of the criminal case. Proceedings under Section 218 IPC were also initiated against him for making interpolation in the affidavit which are said to be still pending. Under the aforesaid circumstances, preliminary enquiry was held to verify the fact. The Petitioner was not found fit to serve on the post of constable in a disciplined force in view of his antecedents and act of interpolation in swearing affidavit, hence his services were terminated in exercise of powers under the U.P. Temporary Govt. Servant Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) THE contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is in two folds. The first contention is that U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 do not apply to the police constables. In support of this contention he has relied upon judgments rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 40708 of 2007: Girijesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors., by His Lordship Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, to the same effect upon judgment rendered by His Lordship in Writ Petition No. 54350 of 2007: Praveen Tyagi v. State. Besides the cases cited above, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also relied upon a Full Bench decision in the case of Vijay Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2004 (4) ESC 2209 and also in the case of Subhash Chandra Sharma v. State of U.P., 2000 AWC (3) 2367 and in the case of Vijay Shanker Tripathi v. State Public Services Tribunal and Ors. Writ Petition No. 28767 of 1998 decided on 23.11.2005.;