- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents.
(2.) THE main question raised by the petitioner, in the instant writ application is as to whether the petitioner, who is admittedly appointed to the post of Constable after his selection having been made, could be terminated from service under the provisions of Rule 49 read with Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1935, without initiating a departmental proceeding on specific charge of misconduct? The facts of the petitioner's case are as follows: '' In response to an Advertisement No. 1 of 2003, issued by the State Government and published in the local newspapers on 15.8.2003, inviting applications from suitable candidates for the post of Constable in the District Armed Forces of Ranchi, Jamshedpur, Hazaribagh, Dumka and Dhanbad, the petitioner submitted his application in the prescribed format annexing thereto all the relevant requisite documents. On being called upon, the petitioner had appeared at the Physical Test on the basis of the roll number allotted to him. The petitioner was declared successful at the Test. He was thereafter called upon to appear at the Medical Test. Having been declared as medically fit, he was finally selected and by letter dated 6.2.2004, issued by the Respondent No. 2, he was appointed on the post of temporary Police. He was thereafter sent for Training at the Police Training Centre at Punjab. More than nine months after the date of his appointment, a show cause notice was served upon him by the Respondent No. 2, calling upon him to explain as to why he should not be removed from service for violations of the conditions of Advertisement. The purported violation of the conditions of the Advertisement was that the petitioner had submitted simultaneously two separate applications for two separate districts. The petitioner submitted his show cause replies before the Respondent No. 2 explaining therein, that he had submitted only one application in respect of the District Police Force and though he had filed another writ (sic) application but it was in respect of the Railway Police Force, Jamshedpur. He had also explained that though he had submitted two different applications but he had appeared for one Test only in respect of the Railway (sic) District Force, in which he had qualified. In spite of the explanations offered, the Respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order vide Memo No. 4807, dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure -5), terminating the services of the petitioner under Rule 49 read with Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1935 with retrospective effect from 26.12.2004.
(3.) BESIDES challenging the aforesaid impugned order and praying for quashing the same, the petitioner had also prayed for an order directing the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.;