Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Som Narain Mishra, learned standing counsel for the State -Respondents. Perused the record. This special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2001 passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 33261 of 1992: Isar Ahmad v/s. Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra and another, by which petitioner's -appellant's writ petition was dismissed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner -appellant was selected and appointed as Constable on 22.12.1991 after written and physical examinations. He joined at Kanpur on 22.12.1991 and was sent to Agra for training. While petitioner -appellant was undergoing training, he was served with a order dated 25.8.1992 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra, terminating his services on the ground that petitioner was involved in criminal case No. 113 of 1990 under Sec. 304 -B, IPC, upon making him entitled to one month's salary under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. Aggrieved by said order, petitioner -appellant filed writ petition on the ground that the order of termination appears to be innocuous as the same was passed without holding any inquiry on the alleged participation of the petitioner in case crime No. 113 of 1990 under Sec. 304 -B, IPC, P.S. Khanna, District Hamirpur. The writ petition has been dismissed by learned Single Judge on 13.12.2001 holding that ground of termination is not the involvement of petitioner in criminal case but the suppression of fact that he was involved in a criminal case. Hence the present special appeal has been filed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner -appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the grounds that the impugned order of termination has been passed without complying with the mandatory provisions of Para 541 of U.P. Police Regulations as admittedly the procedure prescribed in Sub Para (2) was not followed; that learned Single Judge has completely ignored the opportunity contemplated under Sub Para (2) of Para 541 of U.P. Police Regulations, which provides that before terminating the services of probationer, the Superintendent of Police must provide relevant record with specific complaints and grounds on which it is proposed to discharge him and then he should be called upon to show -cause as to why he should not be discharged from service; that the punishment of termination was highly disproportionate to the misconduct as such the order of learned Single Judge is wholly illegal and deserves to be set aside.;