- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.1.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6717/2006 alongwith W.P.(S) No. 4191/2006* by which the writ petitions were dismissed holding therein that the termination of the petitioners/respondents herein from the post of Constables was arbitrary and illegal as their services had been terminated without due process of law since no enquiry in the eye of law had been conducted for the charges levelled against the appellant.
(2.) IN the first place, this appeal is time barred by 48 days for which there is hardly any explanation much less satisfactory explanation for the delay. In fact the appeal was fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself but we thought it appropriate to consider the matter on merit ignoring the delay so as to ensure that no injustice is caused to the appellant -State merely on the ground of delay. We, therefore, permitted the counsel to address us on the merit of the matter. Assailing the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, it was submitted that the appellant had duly issued show cause notices to the respondents and enquiry also was held, but they failed to explain the charge that they had been appointed without taking recourse to the established Rule in regard to the appointment.
(3.) WE have tested the argument advanced by the learned counsel in the light of the meticulous reasonings assigned by the learned Single Judge who, while examining the plea of the petitioners/respondents herein that their termination was illegal, noted that the respondents had been appointed by the competent authority under the Rule where such appointment is permissible to any person who assisted the police administration in checking the crimes in the area. The competent authority, in view of the services rendered by the respondents as informers in checking the serious menace like kidnapping and terrorist activities, had offered exemplary service in nabbing the criminals and this was the reason that they had been appointed by the competent authority which was permissible under the Rule. Subsequently, an order of termination was passed against them by the authority without even clarifying that the respondents had not been appointed illegally but were appointed under the Rule which permitted such appointment.;