PREMCHANDRA DHALPURIA Vs. THE STATE THROUGH THE I G POLICE BHOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 8-7-1963 passed by the Inspector-General of Police terminating the services of the petitioner as a Sub-Inspector of Police on one month's notice on the assumption that the petitioner was a temporary Sub-Inspector. The petitioner's contention has been that he has been a probationary Sub-Inspector appointed with effect from 1-1-1959 on two years' probation. His period of probation was never extended. Being an employee on probation, his services could not be terminated in the manner after the period of probation was over and he was continued in service. It was also alleged that certain false reports had been made by interested political workers; and as a result, a departmental enquiry was also started and a criminal prosecution was launched against the petitioner. But the departmental enquiry was dropped as the allegations were found to be baseless. Similarly the criminal Court discharged the petitioner by observing that the allegations regarding a criminal offence were baseless and mischievous. It has been contended by the petitioner that as no departmental action or legal action in a Court of law could be taken, the order of termination of services has been passed so as to bypass those impediments. As such it is contended that the socalled order of termination of services is a fraud on the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and the rules and regulations by which the petitioner is governed.

(2.) ON behalf of the State, the stand is that the petitioner has been a temporary employee, and not a probationer. It is admitted that a criminal prosecution was launched and a departmeatal enquiry was also instituted. But as the allegations were found to be without foundation, the departmental enquiry was dropped and the criminal Court discharged the petitioner. It is further alleged that the action taken for terminating the services has nothing to do with the departmental enquiry or with the criminal charge. As the petitioner is a temporary Sub-Inspector, his services can be terminated on one month's notice and the order passed does not cast any reflection on the petitioner in his capacity as a public servant. Therefore, the same cannot be challenged in a writ petition,

(3.) THE agreement between the petitioner and the Inspector-General of Police (annexure I) (to be found at page 71 of the paper book) after he passed from the M. P. Police College, Sagar, would indicate that the petitioner's appointment would be more or less on a probationary basis. Rule 48 of the Police Regulations framed by the State Government by virtue of powers conferred by section 46 (2) read with sections 2 and 7 of the Police Act, 1861 would indicate that Sub-Inspectors can be appointed in two ways only. One is a category of Departmental Sub-Inspectors, who are promoted from the grade of Assistant Sub-Inspectors or Head Constables. In their case, it is not necessary to keep them on probation. It is discretionary with the authorities whether to keep them on probation or otherwise. But as regards candidates, who pass from the Sagar Police College they have to be kept on probation for a period of two years or for such extended period as the appropriate authority may think proper. THEy are described as outsider Sub Inspector in the Police Regulations. THE Police Regulations at least do not provide for appointment of outside candidates as temporary Sub-Inspectors. THErefore, the position is that unless the respondent is able to invoke the provisions of the Civil Service Regulations, which provide for the appointment of temporary employees, any outsider candidate appointed as a Sub Inspector will undoubtedly be a probationary Sub-Inspector.