Mootham, C.J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which has been filed in the following circumstances: The petitioner was formerly in the police service in Sind, now West Pakistan. In 1947, at the time of partition he came to the United Provinces, and on the 20th August, 1949, he was appointed a Sub-Inspector in the United Provinces Police on probation for two years from the date of joining the force. This he did on the 31st August, 1949. The letter of appointment read as follows:-- "Appointment of Displaced persons as S. Is. in U. P. You are appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the scale of Rs. 120-6-180-E. B. 10-200 plus usual dearness allowance admissible under the rules and posted to Unnao in a vacancy. You should report to the Superintendent of Police, Unnao, at once. No. V-1530-47, dated August 20, 1949. Copy forwarded to the Supdt. of Police, Unnao for information and necessary action. The candidate will be appointed on probation for a period of 2 years and confirmed in his appointment by the Range D.I.G. if found suitable vide para 537 P. Rs." On the 21st August 1951 the petitioner was summarily discharged from the service by the Deputy Inspector-General, Central Range, but, on appeal to the Inspector General of Police the latter directed that the petitioner be reinstated and that an enquiry be made into his conduct in accordance with para 537 of the Police Regulations. The petitioner thereafter rejoined the service and on the. 28th May of the same year a notice was served upon him under para 537 calling upon him to submit an explanation with regard to six charges which it appears were enumerated in that notice. The notice for some reason which is not very clear, has not been filed; but it appears that toe first two charges related to the petitioner's failure to comply with certain training orders. The remaining charges were more serious. Charge No. 3 was in relation to a woman with regard to whom it appears to have been alleged that the petitioner did pairivi on her behalf in a case under Section 19 (f) of the Arms Act. Charge No. 4 was that the petitioner had demanded a bribe from one Ram Bharosey for not proceeding with a case against him under Sections 107 and 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, charge No. 5 that he had harassed one Ganga Prasad and others in connection with an investigation under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and charge No. 6 that he had extorted a sum of Rs. 80 from one Sita Ram. The Deputy Inspector General by an order dated the 11th December 1952, accepted the petitioner's explanation with regard to the first and second charges but not in respect of the remaining charges which he held to be proved; and he ordered the discharge of the petitioner under para 537 with immediate effect. The petitioner appealed against this order to the Inspector General of Police. The Inspector General dismissed the appeal by an order, dated the 2nd May, 1933. The petitioner then sent a petition for mercy to the State Government and was not informed of its rejection until the 28th March, 1955. Notice of the present petition was served by the petitioner on the respondents on the 25th July following. When this matter came before me a preliminary objection was taken that the petition should not be entertained, as it was belated. This objection I however overruled by my order dated the 13th September last.
(2.) I have now heard the petition on its merits and learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced two contentions first that the provisions of para 537 of the Police Regulations have no application to the petitioner and, secondly that, if that regulation is applicable, there has been no compliance with the mandatory provisions of Article 311 (a) of the Constitution.
(3.) Paragraph 537 is in Chap. XXXVI of the Police Regulations. This chapter provides for the training of sub-inspectors and para 534 provides that sub-inspectors of the Civil Police must pass through the Provincial Police Training College. The provisions of this chapter appear to contemplate that the sub-inspectors to whom it refers will be either such persons as have been appointed sub-inspectors by direct recruitment of officers of lower rank who have been specially selected for the police Training College course. Paragraph 537 then provides that a Sub-Inspector on probation may be confirmed in his appointment by the Deputy Inspector General after the expiry of the probationary period of two years. It further provides that a Deputy Inspector General may on his own authority discharge the probationary Sub-Inspector who was selected for the Police Training College course by direct recruitment, but that, inter alia, the probationary Sub-Inspector against whom an order of discharge is likely to be passed must be supplied in writing with the specific complaints and grounds on which he deserves punishment and that he should be called upon to show cause why he should not be so punished.;