P.D. Sharma, J. - (1.) TEK Chand has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, of India for quashing the order terminating his services as a foot constable in the Delhi police. Facts relevant for the disposal thereof are as follows: Tek Chand was recruited as a temporary foot constable in the Delhi Police under the Police Act (V of 1861) with effect from 10th of February, 1959. He was awarded five commendation certificates for the good work done by him in the tenure of his service. Subsequently, Shri B.N. Muttoo, Superintendent of Police "Lines", Delhi, by his order dated 10th of April, 1962 gave one month's notice under rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, to him for terminating his services. His services were terminated immediately after one month from the date of the service of the notice on him. His representation to the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, brought him no relief. He alleges that the order terminating his services was bad in law and in support thereof states that he was governed by the provisions of the Police Act and the Rules made thereunder and so his services could not have been terminated under rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949. According to the Police Rules, he could not have been removed from service without regular departmental inquiry envisaged in rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules since he had been in continuous employment of the Government for more than three years. He also maintained that he was appointed to the service by the Deputy Inspector -General of Police, Delhi, and so according to the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, his services could not have been terminated by the Superintendent of Police "Lines" who was Junior in rank to his appointing authority, and further that having completed three years' service he under rule 3(i) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, should be deemed to be in quasi -permanent service of the Government and rule 5 of the said rules could not be invoked in his case. He went on to allege that the Superintendent of Police, who terminated his services, was actuated by malice as his record was free from blemish and not even once he was warned for any lapse on his part in the discharge of his duties.
(2.) THE respondents, in their written statement, pleaded that the petitioner had been recruited as temporary foot constable only, that his case was fully covered by the provisions made in the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, and so his services could rightly be terminated after giving him a month's notice as provided in rule 5 of the said rules. It was further maintained that the petitioner could not be deemed to have been in quasi -permanent service of the Government and further that he was appointed by the Superintendent of Police "Lines" and so his service could also be terminated by him. The malicious nature of the order terminating his services was as well challenged. There can be no dispute about the proposition that members of the Police Establishment in the Union territory of Delhi are ordinarily governed by the provisions of the Police Act (V of 1861) and the Rules made thereunder by the Punjab Government which have been made applicable to the Union territory of Delhi as well. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that the Chief Commissioner, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by the second paragraph of section 2 of the Police Act (Act V of 1861), read with the notification of the Government of India, in the late Home Department No. 74/40 - Police, dated 14th October, 1940, directed by Notification No. F. 7A(1943) 49 -H, dated 6th July, 1950, that the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, should apply to all lower subordinates of the Delhi Police (vide R. 1). He therefore, proceeded to argue on the basis of the said notification that the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949. Section 2 of the Police Act runs as follows: The entire police -establishment under a State Government shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be one police -force, and shall be formally enrolled; and shall consist of such number of officers and men, and shall be constituted in such manner, as shall from time to time be ordered by the State Government. Subject to the provisions of this Act the pay and all other conditions of service of members of the subordinate ranks of any police -force shall be such as may be determined by the State Government. The Chief Commissioner was fully competent to issue the notification (Annexure R. 1) under this provision of law. The petitioner having been recruited as a temporary foot constable vide Annexure R. 2. his case was governed by rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949. Rule 5 of the said Rules, amongst other things, also provides that the service of a temporary Government servant who is not in quasi -permanent service shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority, or by the appointing authority to the Government servant. The period of such notice shall be one month, unless otherwise agreed to by the Government and by the Government servant. The provisions of this rule were fully complied with by respondent 4 before terminating the petitioner's services.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that since the petitioner at the time of the termination of his services had been in continuous Government service for more than three years, he should have been deemed to be in quasi -permanent Government service, under rule 3 of the aforesaid rules which runs as under: A Government servant shall be deemed to be in quasi -permanent service: (i) if he has been in continuous Government service for more than three years; (ii) if the appointing authority, being satisfied as to his suitability in respect of age, qualifications, work and character, for employment in a quasi -permanent capacity, has issued a declaration to that effect, in accordance with such instructions as the Governor General may issue from time to time. In the opinion of the learned counsel, mere completion of three years' continuous Government service was sufficient for a Government servant to be treated in quasi -permanent Government service. He relied on the case, Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India : A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 36, at page 48, where it was observed: - Further, take the case of a person who having been appointed temporarily to a post has been in continuous service for more than three years or has been certified by the appointing authority as fit for employment in a quasi -permanent capacity, such person, under Rule 3 of the 1949 Temporary Service Rules, is to be in quasi -permanent service which, under Rule 6 of those Rules, can be terminated (i) in the circumstances and in the manner in which the employment of a Government servant in a permanent service can be terminated or (ii) when the appointing authority certifies that a reduction has occurred in the number of posts available for Government servants not in permanent service. Thus when the service of a Government servant holding a post temporarily ripens into a quasi -permanent service as defined in the 1949 Temporary Service Rules, he acquires a right to the post although his appointment was initially temporary and, therefore, the termination of his employment otherwise than in accordance with Rule 6 of those Rules will deprive him of his right to that post which he acquired under the rules and will prima facie be a punishment and regarded as a dismissal or removal from service so as to attract the application of Article 311.;