- (1.) The present petition has been preferred against the order of dismissal, passed by respondent no. 5 dated 27.12.2008 (Annexure-5 to the memo of petition), whereby the services of the petitioner has been brought to an end mainly because of the fact that there is four days absentism. Besides the allegation of absentism; allegation of indiscipline, dereliction in duty, acting arbitrarily and doubtful behaviour, have also been levelled against the petitioner,in the impugned order by respondent no 5.
(2.) It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that neither any enquiry has been conducted nor any chargesheet has been given to the petitioner justifying these allegations nor any opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner to meet with these allegations. Therefore, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the light of several decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (a) UNION OF INDIA AND ORS v. MAHAVEER C SINGHVI, 2010 8 SCC 220; (b) UPTRON INDIA LIMITED v. SHAMMI BHAN, 1998 6 SCC 538; (c) BASUDEO TIWARY v. SIDO KANHU UNIVERSITY, 1998 8 SCC 194 and (d) 2004 (2) JLJR 185 even if the petitioner is a Probationer then also during the course of probation period if the services of the Probationer is brought to an end by levelling serious allegations, opportunity of being heard ought to have been given to the petitioner. Being the fact of the case, petitioner is a probationer; she is a lady constable appointed after due process of selection on 20.3.2008 and by those aforesaid allegations, her services ought not to have been brought to an end on 27.12.2008.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no need of holding enquiry when the services of the probationer has to be brought to an end. During the period of probation, services of the petitioner has been brought to an end by virtue to Rule 668 of the Jharkhand Police Manual,2000. Moreover, there are several allegations mentioned in the impugned order including absentism of four days. It is further submitted that necessary show cause notice was given to the petitioner and explanation was sought for, for the allegations referred in the impugned order. In this show cause notice dated 3.12.2008, which is at Annexure 3 to the memo of petition, the allegations against the petitioner are not only about the absentism but also about the indiscipline, dereliction in duty, acting arbitrarily and doubtful behaviour but it is true that no regular enquiry has been conducted for the allegations in question against the petitioner.;