Ashok Bhushan - (1.) -Heard counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 1.5.2007 by which order the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri has cancelled the selection of the petitioner as constable (Police). The petitioner appeared for the recruitment of civil police and was selected on 17.11.2006. Petitioner claimed to have joined on 17.11.2006 and thereafter sent for training on 11.2.2007. The order has been passed on 1.5.2007 cancelling the appointment. The order passed by the Superintendent of Police mentions that against the petitioner there were seven criminal cases, the details of the case number and sections of the I.P.C. have been mentioned and the Police Station where the cases were registered is the same police station Gursahai Ganj, District Kanauj. The petitioner filed an affidavit in which he stated that no case has been registered against the petitioner. In Paragraph 15 of the said affidavit it was also mentioned that if any fact mentioned in the affidavit is found false or concealed at any time, the selection of the petitioner be cancelled without notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that the cases mentioned at serial Nos. 1 and 3 the petitioner has already been acquitted on 14.9.2006 and 1.4.2005. With regard to cases noted at Serial Nos. 4 and 5 it was mentioned that the petitioner's name was found wrongly included. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in accordance with Paragraph 541 of the Police Regulations, the petitioner was entitled for notice since his probation was sought to be terminated. I have considered the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner has applied for the recruitment on the post of Constable (Police) and has filed affidavit stating that no criminal case has ever been registered. It is not denied that the cases mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 7 were registered and some resulted in acquittal and in some his name was found deleted. The Case Crime No. 195A/2002 and 244/2004 noted at Serial Nos. 1 and 3 resulted in acquittal on 14.9.2006 and 1.4.2005 respectively. In the affidavit the petitioner was required to disclose all cases registered against him which either resulted in acquittal or conviction. The respondents have cancelled the appointment after being satisfied that the petitioner has not disclosed seven criminal cases registered against him as mentioned in the impugned order. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Regulation 541 (2) of the Police Regulations, the petitioner was entitled to notice before his termination. The petitioner's selection has been cancelled on account of his filing false affidavit in the recruitment before appointment. The purpose and object of Regulation 541 (2) is to give notice before dispensing of the services of the probation. Regulation 541 (2) of the Police Regulations is quoted below : "541. (1) .............................. (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.) THE clear words in the regulation is in any case in which either during or at the end of the period of probation, the Superintendent of Police is of the opinion that 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. Regulation 541 (2) is thus with regard to conduct of the probationer after joining the service. THE decision to terminate the service during probation is taken on account of the work and conduct for which notice is contemplated. THE said Regulation 541 (2) is not applicable in the case of the petitioner where the allegation against the petitioner is that he had filed false affidavit concealing the registration of seven criminal cases against him. Thus, the submission of counsel for the petitioner on the basis of Regulation 541 (2) has no merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2000) 5 SCC 152 : 2000 (3) AWC 1848 (SC). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Regulation 541 (2) was considered in the judgment of the Apex Court and it was held that Regulation 541 (2) provided that before termination of service the prescribed procedure be followed.;