VINEET SARAN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was duly selected as a Constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary (in short 'P.A.C.') along with 179 other candidates. After appointment, he joined duty as a Constable in August, 1994. On receiving information of his wife's illness, he left for his home on 30th December, 1998 after applying for leave, but without waiting for the same to be sanctioned. Thereafter when he returned back after 11 days i.e. on 10 -1 -1999, he was informed that by an order dated 8 -1 -1999 passed by Commandant, 36 Vahini, P.A.C. Ram Nagar, Varanasi, Respondent No. 3 he had been dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, P.A.C, Varanasi Region, Varanasi. Without entering into the merits of the case, the appeal was dismissed on 30 -3 -1999 on the ground of maintainability, holding that the appeal would not lie under Rule 20(1)(a) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for quashing the said orders dated 8 -1 -1999 and 30 -3 -1999 passed by Respondent Nos. 3 and 2 respectively.
(2.) I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if the petitioner was on probation, before passing an order dismissing him from service, it was incumbent on the authorities to issue a show cause notice and follow the procedure prescribed under Paragraph 541(2) of the Police Regulations. It was urged that the U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1975) have no applicability to the officials of the police department and their service conditions would be governed by the Police Act and the administrative instructions and guidelines issued there under. It was further submitted that the action which has been taken by the respondent was punitive in nature which was based on the absence of the petitioner from duty and thus the petitioner ought to have been afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing of such order. It was also contended that by the same selection, those who were junior to the petitioner, have been retained in service whereas the service of the petitioner has wrongly and illegally been dispensed with.
(3.) IN support of his submission the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P. and others, 2000(2) LBESR 308 (SC) : 2000 All. L.J. 1445 and Chandra Prakash Tiwari and others v. Shakuntala Shukla and others, (2002) 6 SCC 127.;