IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1054 of 2009 Ravindra Singh Bisht …….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Sri Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Alok Mehra, Advocate present for the petitioner. Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Sri Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner has challenged his order of termination dated 15.10.2009 on the post of Platoon Commander in Provincial Armed Constabulary (from hereinafter referred to as PAC). Although the order dated 15.10.2009 appears to be an order of termination simplicitor wherein it has been stated that the services of the petitioner have been terminated under Uttarakhand Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 2003 as his services are no more required, yet in the counter affidavit the reasons assigned for terminating the services of the petitioner have been given by the State which are that the petitioner was earlier a Home Guard and while selection/appointment was made on the post of constable PAC, he was recruited as constable in PAC under the Home Guard quota. Thereafter he went for training as a constable and was finally inducted in service as a constable. Consequently thereafter another advertisement was issued by the PAC Headquarter for the post of Platoon Commander, PAC. There were total 16 vacancies of Platoon Commander, PAC out of which there 2 was 5 % quota for “Home Guards”. The petitioner though was already a constable in PAC filled the form for said recruitment as a candidate of Home Guard. In other words, the petitioner though had ceased to be a Home Guard wanted to take the benefit of this reservation once again and applied under the said quota. He was subsequently selected in the year 2008 and thereafter he underwent a training of Platoon Commander and was later formally given the appointment of Platoon Commander vide order dated 23.4.2009. Consequently when it was noticed by the authorities that the petitioner had secured appointment under the quota of “Home Guards” they terminated the services of the petitioner under Uttarakhand Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 2003 vide order dated 15.10.2009 (annexure no. 10 to the writ petition). It is this termination order which has been challenged by the petitioner. The ground of challenge to the said termination order is that the petitioner has rightly applied under the quota of Home Guard inasmuch as though he was inducted in service in PAC, he continued to be a Home Guard and there was no anomaly on the part of the petitioner. On the face of it this argument is fallacious inasmuch as once the petitioner has gained appointment in PAC, he ceases to be a Home Guard yet he applied in Home Guard quota. All the same, it is also true that termination of services of the petitioner under Uttarakhand Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 2003 does not seem to be right inasmuch as the petitioner was not in “temporary service”. The word “temporary service” is defined in the U.P. Temporary 3 Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, which reads as under :- “2. Definition. – In these rules “temporary service” means officiating or substantive service on a temporary post, or officiating service on a permanent post under the Uttar Pradesh Government.” Further the petitioner has also relied upon Regulation 537 of U.P. Police Regulations, which reads as under :- “537. (1) The Deputy Inspector General of Police, may extend the period of probation of a candidate placed on probation under para 534 in individual cases up to a total period not exceeding one year. Any such extension shall specify the exact date up to which the extension is granted. (2) If at any time during or at the end of period of his probation or before an order of his confirmation has been passed and come into effect, a probationer is found not to have made sufficient use of his opportunities or has otherwise failed to satisfaction, the Deputy Inspector General of Police may order – (i) his discharge, if he is appointed directly, or (ii) his reversion, if he is appointed by promotion. Provided that in the case of discharge, he shall be apprised of the grounds of his discharge, given an opportunity to show cause against the order of discharge and his explanation in this behalf, if any, shall be duly considered before orders of discharge are passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. (3) A probationer discharged from the service during or at the end of the period of probation or at the end of the extended period of probation under sub-para (2) shall not be entitled to any compensation. (4) A probationer shall be confirmed in his appointment at the end of period of probation or at the end of the extended period of probation if the Deputy Inspector General of Police considers him fit for confirmation and his integrity is certified.” 4 Even assuming that the petitioner has misrepresented in order to get benefit of reservation of Home Guard quota, before terminating his services reasons were liable to be assigned by the authority under the aforesaid provision after giving an opportunity of hearing or show-cause to the petitioner. This has clearly not been done and therefore the impugned order is liable to set aside. The order dated 15.10.2009 passed by the Inspector General, Provincial Armed Constabulary, Uttarakhand, Dehradun is hereby set aside. However, it is made clear that Inspector General, P.A.C. will look into the matter afresh. The petitioner will be assigned reasons under Regulations 537 and will be shown as to how and under what conditions he misrepresented as a Home Guard for gaining benefit of induction as a Platoon Commander and once the reply of the petitioner has been looked into, proper order will be passed. It is directed that the Inspector General, P.A.C. will expedite the matter and take a decision as expeditiously as possible. It is further directed that till a decision is taken in the matter, the petitioner will be treated to be under suspension. It is once again made clear that the interference made by this Court is only on the procedural part, in other words because of the absence of any procedure adopted by the respondents. The Court has not gone on the merits of the case. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 22.3.2011 Avneet