A.N.Varma, J. - (1.) Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 13.6.2000 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, whereby his services have been terminated in purported exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Rules).
(2.) The petitioner after having qualified for the written test, physical test and medical test, was declared successful for being appointed on the post of Constable in the Police Department. Accordingly pursuant to his letter of appointment which has been filed as Annexure-S.C.A.-1 along with the Supplementary Affidavit, he joined the Department on 15.5.1995 at Police Lines, Kanpur. Upon being so appointed the petitioner was required to undergo Junior Training Course (J.T.C.) of one month. After completion of the said training he was further required to undergo nine months' training of Recruitment Training Course, which, Course he joined on 15.6.1995 at Lucknow. While undergoing the aforesaid training the petitioner on 12.4.1996 proceeded on casual leave for three days and went to his native place at Bahraich where he fell ill. On 18.4.1996 he is said to have intimated the Superintendent of Police about his illness on telephone. According to the petitioner he all along remained indisposed and, after having recovered from his illness on 27.7.1996 he submitted his joining before the authority concerned but was not allowed to join. Thereafter he made several representations before the appropriate authorities, copies of which have been annexed along with the writ petition, as Annexures-10 to 14 but to no avail. Finally vide impugned order dated 13.6.2000, a copy of which has been annexed along with the writ petition as Annexure-1, the services of the petitioner were terminated in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 3 of the rules.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri U. N. Misra vehemently argued that though the order of termination is simpliciter but the same is punitive in nature inasmuch as the motive behind passing of the said order is his absence from duty which, in fact, was beyond his control. It was also argued that he intimated the authorities about his illness and also sent leave applications along with the medical certificate but the same were not considered and his services were dispensed with by a simple order of termination. According to him since the order impugned has been passed on the ground of alleged misconduct of the petitioner, for remaining absent from duty an opportunity of hearing was required to be given to him and without such an opportunity having been afforded, the impugned order is manifestly unjust, illegal and against the provisions of the U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (to be hereinafter referred to as 1991 Rules).;