Om Prakash, J. - (1.) CONFIRMATION plays a vital role in Government service, but very often the Central and State Legislature do not specify the point of time of confirmation and such omission invariably gives rise to inevitable litigation by the Government servants when an order of termination simpliciter is passed against them. In this context this petition throws up a question for consideration whether the Petitioner, who was appointed a police constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police Department on 7th October, 1977, continued to be temporary until 8 -10 -1987, that is for about a decade when his services were terminated.
(2.) IT is averred by the Petitioner that Regulation 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations has fixed the probation period of a recruit in police force at 2 years and, therefore, on the expiry of that period if his services are not terminated on account of unsuitability or misconduct, then he will stand confirmed by implication. The Petitioner was first suspended by the order dated 18 -8 -1987 (Annexure "1" to the writ petition) on the charge that he handed over a licensed gun belonging to his brother, Sri Raj Kumar, to one Sri Dinesh Kumar, alias Achhan, which was later recovered by the Kotwali Police and thereafter the Petitioner reached Kotwali Fatehgarh in a drunken state to persuade the police not to take any action in the matter. Such suspension order was passed in contemplation of an enquiry, but without initiating any enquiry against the Petitioner, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Respondent No. 2, revoked the suspension order and reinstated the Petitioner by the order dated 7 -10 -1987 (Annexure "2" to the writ petition) and the next following day, i.e., on 8th October, 1987, he passed termination simplicter order against the Petitioner. The contention of the Petitioner is that he having been confirmed by implication on the expiry of fixed probationary period of two years, his services could not have been terminated by passing an order of termination simpliciter, but he could be removed from the service on the aforesaid charge only after a regular enquiry.
(3.) IT is stated in the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 that the Petitioner was temporary and he was never confirmed and, therefore, the impugned order of termination simpliciter is perfectly legal and no enquiry was required in his case.;