SUDHIR NARAIN,J. - (1.) THE petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order dated 1 -1 -1979 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, Respondent No. 2, terminating her services.
(2.) THE version of the petitioner is that she was recruited as a Lady Constable on 12 -11 -1974 on temporary basis but against a clear vacancy. Her aunt, Smt. Kutuma Devi, was holding a gun licence which was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur but Smt. Kutuma Devi got the impression that her licence was cancelled on the complaint made by the petitioner against her because there was a family dispute in their family and the petitioner being a lady constable could influence the authority to get her licence cancelled. Smt. Kutuma Devi is alleged to have made a complaint to the superior officers of the police department against the petitioner and on her complaint one Shri Jitendra Kumar, A.S.P., was appointed as the Enquiry Officer who took statements of Smt. Kutuma Devi and her servant. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report to the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur and on the basis of such report he terminated the services of the petitioner by the impugned order. The petitioner filed a petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow against the order of termination. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statements before Respondent No. 3 and it was denied that the services of the petitioner were terminated on the basis of the enquiry report against her. She was a temporary recruit and after considering her conduct the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur terminated her services. The Tribunal found that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and she had no right to the post. The Tribunal further found that the order of termination was simplicitor and was not passed by way of punishment and dismissed the claim petition by order dated 5 -10 -1981. The petitioner has challenged these orders in the present writ petition.
(3.) WE have heard Shri V.B. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Sanjay Goswami, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.;