L. Prasad, J. - (1.)THIS is a special appeal from the judgment, dated August 23, 1963, of a learned single Judge dismissing the appellants petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notice, dated 20th May 1961, by which respondent No. 3 terminated the services of the appellant and for ordering the respondents to treat the appellant as continuing In service.
(2.)SRI Bairagi Ram, the appellant, was recruited as a temporary Sub-Inspector by the respondent No. 3 on 1st January, 1956. It appears that while he was posted at Police Station, Goshainganj, he was suspended on a charge of illegal detention of a person at the police station and tried departmentally under Section 7 of the Police Act but subsequently he was reinstated and the proceedings were dropped. In 1961 he was posted as Second Officer at Police Station, Pisawan. The Deputy Inspector- General of Police, Lucknow Range, Lucknow, namely, respondent No. 3 on the occasion of his winter inspection in 1961 made an adverse entry against the appellant in the following words:--"S.-I. Bairagi Ram who was enlisted on 1-1-1956 is posted as 2nd officer, P. S. Pisawan, in spite of reprimand at my last inspection; the S. P. reports that this S.-I. has not yet settled down to hard and honest work. He is being finally warned for removal from service if In the next three months he does not get a clean chit from the S. P."
This entry, according to the allegations of the appellant, was not communicated to him till the 2nd of June, 1961, whereas his services were terminated by a notice, dated the 20th of May, 1961 which was given to him by respondent No. 3 in the following words:-- "Sri Bairagi Ram, Temporary Sub-Inspector of Police, Sitapur. In accordance with the terms of your appointment contained in appointment (B) Department Notification No. 230/II-B-1963, dated January 30, 1953, your services, which are temporary, are terminated with immediate effect and you are being paid one month's pay in lieu of one month's notice."

The main contention of the appellant is that even though the order by which his services came to be terminated appears to be an order of termination simpliciter in accordance with the terms of his employment, in reality it Is an order of dismissal or removal because at the time he was given the notice no less than 700 Sub-Inspectors of Police junior to him were working and were retained. It is thus alleged that the order of termination is bad in so far as it has not been passed in accordance with the requirements of Article 311 of the Constitution. The other contention of the appellant is that even if the order in question be not taken as violative of Article 311 of the Constitution it is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution in so far as the appellant came to be picked up arbitrarily for termination of his services.

(3.)THE learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the order of termination in the instant case was not a camouflaged order and was not accordingly violative of Article 313 of the Constitution. On the other question raised by the appellant the finding of the learned single Judge is that so long as the appellant continued to be a temporary government servant his services were liable to termination by one month's notice or on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice without considering the question of juniority or seniority and hence there was no question of any discrimination or the order being violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In view of the said findings the learned single Judge dismissed the petition. Hence, the petitioner has come up in appeal.
We have heard the appellant's counsel at some length. Besides raising the above mentioned two points the appellant's counsel raised one more point before us, namely, that the rule which lays down that the services of temporary Government servants are liable to termination by one month's notice or on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice, cannot be applied to the members of the Police Force in view of the provisions of Sections 2 and 7 of the Police Act, 1861 and those of the Regulations framed under Section 7 of the Act.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.