Devi Prasad Singh, J. - (1.) 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Sameer Kalia, Mr. Amit Bose, Mr. Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Singh, Mr. Rajeev Singh, Mr. I.P. Singh, Mr. Shishir Jain, Mr. R.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Jai Deep Narayan Mathur, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record.
(2.) IN these bunch of writ petitions, common question of facts and law are involved and decided by present common judgment. From the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it borne out that in the year 2006, selections were done to fill up large number of vacancies of Constables in the police department in the State of U.P. 19000 candidates and odd were selected in different divisions of the State of U.P. by different committees and selectees were appointed accordingly. Under the U.P. Police Regulations, appointments are done on probation with due training. It has been submitted by Mr. S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel that the facts, enumerated in the impugned memorandum are false and incorrect. It has been further submitted that the selection of the year 2005-2006 was challenged in this Court and its validity was upheld by Hon'ble Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 23.8.2005, passed in writ petition No.2809(S/S) of 2005 Harendra Singh versus state of U.P. and others. It has also been submitted that the decision taken by the respondents to terminate the services of such large number of police recruits was politically motivated and is based on unfounded facts. The submission is that a committee was constituted in pursuance to the order, passed by the Director General of Police, headed by Shri Shailaja Kant Mishra, Addl. Director General of Police( in short, Shailja Kant Committee). According to the petitioners' counsel, the Committee has acted for extraneous reasons and in a very unfair manner recorded a finding that the entire selection was bad in law and suffers from arbitrary exercise of power. It is also submitted that while submitting report, the Shailaja Kant Committee has given instances which pinpoints with regard to alleged irregularity in selection of certain individuals. It has been submitted that the entire report of the Committee is farce and sham. The alleged irregularities detected by the Commitee with regard to few candidates do not make out a case to terminate the services of all 19000 police personnels who were appointed by different Committees in the State of U.P. and the petitioners are some of them.
(3.) IT has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in the case in hand, no fraud or concealment of fact has been attributed to the petitioners and accordingly, the termination of service is bad in law. Supplementing his arguments, learned counsels further submit that under U.P. Police Regulations, a constable shall be deemed to be on probation and service career of the probationer shall also be protected by Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. Regulation 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations provides that before terminating the services of a probationer, it shall be incumbent upon the State Government to serve a notice and only after receipt of reply and on finding the reply unsatisfactory, the services may be terminated. Fresh appointments were done against regular vacancies in accordance with rules. The State Government was not justified to en-mass terminate the services of the petitioners by stroke of pen only by the change of government. This Court's attention has been invited to the judgment and order dated 14.1.2009, passed in writ petition No.7700 of 2007 where the constitution of committee headed by Shailaja Kant Mishra was impugned. The Division Bench of this Court has recorded a finding that the Director General of Police was not competent to constitute the Committee to make scrutiny with regard to appointments done in the year 2006. However, the Division Bench's judgment of this Court is subject matter of a special leave petition pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While admitting these bunch of writ petitions in writ petition No.7270(S/S) of 2007, following questions were framed on 6.11.2007 for adjudication : 1. Whether without application of mind by the appointing authority to individual cases of selectees against the regular vacancy, the order of termination can be passed on the basis of the report submitted by the State Government ? 2. Whether the present controversy is also covered by the Harendra Singh's case and it is not open for the State Government to sit in appeal over the judgment of this Court and the controversy in question which relates to Moradabad is also covered by the Harendra Singh's case ? 3. Whether it was not open for the State Government to hold de nova enquiry in the present controversy in case it is found to be settled by Harendra Singh's case, adjudicated by this Court ? 4. Whether it was incumbent on the State Government or the appointing authority to consider the individual cases before passing the impugned order of termination in pursuance to the enquiry report ? 5. Whether in the absence of any material against the petitioners which may affect their service career, selection, appointment or in case it is found that the petitioners fulfil all required condition for appointment on the post of Constable in the police department, the termination of their services is an act of abuse of power by the State Government ? 6. Whether the petitioners' services could have been terminated by the respondents in absence of any allegation relating to commission of fraud, concealment of fact or undue influence during the course of their selection and appointment and the services can be terminated without complying with the principles of natural justice ?;