- (1.) A. N. Gupta, J. The petitioner was a constable in the U. P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary (In short PAC ). Sri Sharda Prasad Srivastava, the Assistant Comman dant of PAC, served on the petitioner a chargesheet on 15-12- 1984 which contained four charges. The first charge was to the effect that the petitioner had gone on sanc tioned casual leave on 17-4-1983 and he was required to return on 24-4-1983. The petitioner was also instructed that he would not extend the leave nor would absent nor would get admitted in the hospital. The second charge was that the petitioner ab sented with effect from 24-4-1983 to 29-4-1984 without any information or sanction of leave and thus, he remained absent for 372 days without getting himself admitted or cheked up in a Police Hospital and thereby, committed breach of Paras 382 and 383 of U. P. Police Regulations. The third charge was to the effect that in spite of the fact that the petitioner was served with an order to proceed to Assam and to report for duty but he absented on the false pretext of illness. The last charge was that the petitioner did not come back to his duty on the false pretext of being unwell. Against this char gesheet, the petitioner submitted his writ ten explanation. The Assistant Comman dant held regular disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner who was given reasonable opportunity for defending him self. The inquiry officer submitted his report dated 21-5-1995. Thereafter, Sri Hari Raj Singh, Commandant of Battalion, served a show cause notice on the petitioner against which petitioner submitted his written ex planation. Ultimately, the Commandant of the Battalion passed an order dated 24-9-1985 dismissing the petitioner from service. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner, against the said dismissal order, was also dismissed.
(2.) THE petitioner preferred a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal which dismissed the same on 24-6-1992 against which this writ petition has been preferred. The petitioner is governed by the provisions of U. P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Act, 1948 (in short the "act") under which the force known as PAC to which the petitioner belongs, has been con stituted. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the Assistant Commandant who conducted the discipli nary proceedings against the petitioner nor the Commandant who inflicted the punish ment of dismissal, could act as such, as they failed to sign the Schedule Statement as prescribed under Section 4 of the Act read with Schedule Statement. Section 2 (1) of the Act defines "commandant", "assistant Commandant" and "adjutant" as meaning the persons appointed by the State Govern ment to those offices of the Pradeshik Armed Constabulary. Section 4 of the Act provides that before anyperson, enrolled in Uttar Pradesh Police Force under Police Act, 1861, or not so enrolled, is appointed to be an officer of the Pradeshik Armed Constabulary, the statement in the Schedule shall be read and if necessary, explained to him by a Magistrate, Commandant or Assis tant Commandant, shall be signed by him in acknowledgment of its having been so read and explained to him and shall be attested by the Magistrate, Commandant or Assistant Commandant as the case may be. The Schedule Statement which is given at the end of the Act, is as follows: "at no time during the period of your service in the Pradeshik Armed Constabulary you will be entitled to obtain your discharge at your own request. On the liquidation of the force or of the company in which you may, for the time being, be posted you will be discharged from the Pradeshik Armed Constabulary and unless you were already a confirmed member of Uttar Pradesh Police Force before joining the Pradeshik Armed Con stabulary from Uttar Pradesh Police also, you will, however, be eligible for re- enlistment in Uttar Pradesh Police in the event of your continuing in Uttar Pradesh Police for your re- enlistment there in, your services in the Uttar Pradesh Pradeshik Armed Constabulary will count for promotion and pension in Uttar Pradesh Police. Signature of Police officer in acknowledgment of the above having been read over to him. Signed in my presence, after I had ascer tained that. . . . . . . understood the purport of what he assigned. Magistrate, Commandant or Assistant Commandant. . . . . . . . . "
(3.) THE Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact which has not been challenged on behalf of the State that the Commandant or the Assistant Commandant has not signed the Schedule Statement. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the aforesaid two officers had not signed the Schedule Statement, they could not func tion and discharge their duties and, there fore, the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner by the Commandant is bad in law. THE Scheduled Statement is not in the nature of oath which is a condition prece dent in many cases for assumption of the office. It is merely a statement binding the members of Pradeshik Armed Constabulary that they will not be entitled to get dis charged at their own request and that the services shall come to an end when the force or the battalion is liquidated. Since the Commandant and Assistant Commandant are appointed by the State Government as provided under Section 2 (1) of the Act and as they were so appointed, they could very well discharge the function of their respec tive offices in spite of the fact that they had not signed the Schedule Statement. It is merely an irregularity which does not go to root of the matter. In view of this, I agree with the Tribunal that non-signing of the Schedule Statement by the Assistant Com mandant and Commandant do not attach any disability in functioning as such. It was next urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that by remaining absent for 372 days without prior sanction of leave, the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 7 (g) of the Act. Section 5 of the Act provides that the members of the PAC shall be deemed to be Police Officers and shall be subjected to the liabilities, powers, privileges, penalties, punishments and protection as a police officer duly en rolled under the Police Act, 1861. Thus, the provisions of Police Act, 1861 are applicable to the persons enrolled in the U. P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary.;