DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order of termination from service. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected for the post of I Constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC). He had gone under training at Sitapur till March 1992 and thereafter he was sent to 30th Battalion of P.A.C, at Gonda. He reported for duty at 30th Battalion of P.A.C. On 7.4.1992 he had gone to home for some personal work and when came back a show cause notice dated 13.4.1992 was served on him as to why he was absent from duty. Thereafter petitioner's services were terminated by impugned order dated 18.4.1992 passed in pursuance to U.P. (Temporary Government Servant) Termination of Service Rules, 1975 (in short 'Rules'). Sole ground advanced by the petitioner's Counsel is that petitioner's services could not have been terminated in pursuance to 1975 rule. In case authorities were intended to take any action then they should have to proceed in accordance to provisions contained in Regulation 541 of U.P. Police Regulations.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment reported in Vijay Shankar Tripathi v. State Public Services Tribunal and Ors. 2006 (1) ESC 69 : 2006 (63) ALR 7 (Sum.), rendered by a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench had proceeded to held that services of a constable who has been recruited in accordance to rules cannot be dispensed with under 1975 -rules. In case authorities want to take any action they may proceed only under Regulation 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations. Regulation 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations is being reproduced as under: 541. (1) A recruit will be on probation from the date he begins to officiate in a clear vacancy. The period of probation will be two years except in the following cases: (a) those recruited directly in the criminal investigation department or district intelligence staff will be on probation for three years, and (b) those transferred to the Mounted Police will be governed by the directions in paragraph 84 of the Police Regulations. If at the end of the period of probation conduct and work have been satisfactory and the recruit has been approved by the Deputy Inspector General of Police for service in the force, the Superintendent of Police will confirm him in his appointment. (2) In any case in which, either during or at the end of the period of probation, the Superintendent of Police is of opinion that a recruit is unlikely to make a good police officer he may dispense with his service. Before, however this is done, the recruit must be supplied 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. The recruit must furnish his representation in writing and it will be duly considered by the Superintendent of Police before passing the orders of discharge. (3) Every order passed by a Superintendent under sub -paragraph (2) above shall, subject to the control of the Deputy Inspector General be final. Hon'ble Supreme Court also in a case in Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1706, had held that in case order of termination is being passed on account of misconduct then compliance of principle of natural justice shall be necessary. Since the statutory provisions contained in Regulation 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations has not been complied with and impugned order has been passed relying upon 1975 rules, writ petition deserves to be allowed. In case authorities were intended to lake any action they should have to follow the provisions contained in Regulation 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations, which provides a specific procedure for termination of services. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order of termination dated 18.4.1992 contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition with all consequential benefits. Since the present writ petition was filed after lapse of almost 11 years, petitioner shall not be entitled for any back wages. However, respondents shall provide the continuity of service to the petitioner for other purposes. It shall be open to the respondents to take fresh action in accordance to law. ;