- (1.) The principal question raised in this appeal is whether the order terminating the temporary services of the appellant from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police is in law an order of dismissal or removal from service so as to attract Article 311 (2) of the Constitution.
(2.) The appellant was employed as a temporary sub-Inspector of Police. In 1969 he was posted at Shahjahanpur. The Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur drew up disciplinary proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act against the appellant on the charge that while he was posted at Pithoragarh he had in November, 1964 contracted a second marriage while his first wife was alive. This was done without prior permission of the Government in violation of Rule 29 of the U. P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. The appellant denied the charge and filed a written statement. The Superintendent of Police recorded the evidence for the prosecution as well as the defence. At this stage the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Bareilly visited Shahjahanpur towards the beginning of February, 1970. On a perusal of the file he found that the offence for which the appellant was charged was committed by him at Pithoragarh which was in a police range different than the one to which Shahjahanpur appertained and that without an order of transfer, the proceedings at Shahjahanpur were incompetent. On this view he, on 12th March, 1970, passed an order quashing the disciplinary proceedings.
(3.) On 8th March, 1970, the Inspector-General of Police, Uttar Pradesh issued a Circular to the Superintendents of Police in the State requiring them to submit a list of the Sub-Inspectors, who fell in any of the following three categories: (1) Whose reputation and integrity is very low and/or (2) Who are generally involved in scandals, like drinking, immorality etc., which blackens the face of the U. P. Police, and/or (3) Every where they are a big problem because they encourage gambling, excise offences, brothels, criminals, etc. The Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur drew up a list of such Sub-Inspectors and sent it to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Bareilly on 4th April, 1970. The appellant's name was included in the list. In Tespect of the appellant the Superintendent of Police made the following note: "A corrupt officer, who is not straight forward. Married two wives against Government Servants Conduct Rules. Does not do his duty sincerely. Wherever he goes creates problem.";