Vijay Bahuguna, J. - (1.) The Petitioner, who was appointed as a constable in November, 1963, by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur, has by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the order of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal in Claim petition No. 255/F/V/1984 by means of which the reference preferred by the Petitioner Under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals Act, 1976 was dismissed. The Petitioner has further prayed for the quashing of the order dated 27-5-1973 and the order dated 31-3-1984 by means of which the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against his order of termination was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Range Kanpur.
(2.) The facts in brief are that the Petitioner was appointed as a constable in November, 1963. 26-5-1973 when he was posted at Allahabad, the Petitioner was involved in a criminal case Under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Section 3 of the DIR and Section 29 of the police Act. He was arrested and sent to jail and on the 27th of May, 1973, the Petitioner's services were terminated-On the 23rd of June, 1976 the Petitioner was given benefit of doubt and was acquitted by the Magistrate On the 26th of July, 1983 he made a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police Allahabad and on 13th February, 1984, his representation was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Allahabad. The case of the Petitioner was that as he had been appointed on probation, after the expiry of his probation period his services could not be terminated as he had become a confirmed Government servant and that the order of termination was passed by way of punishment as a result of the involvement of the Petitioner in the criminal case.
(3.) in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State it was contended that the Petitioner was not appointed on probation and he was a temporary Government servant and that on a general assessment of the performance of the Petitioner he was found unsuitable for police service and that he had earned adverse entries in the years 1968, 1971, 1973 and his services were terminated under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules),;