Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition (S/B) No.1735/2002. Km.Anita Tyagi ……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Home Afairs, Dehradun and others. …….. Respondents …………….. Sri N.S.Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondents/State. Date: May 02,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of termination dated 23.11.2002 passed by respondent No.3, contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. 2. The petitioner was recruited as Police constable (women) under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 on 22.04.2002 in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 and she joined at Police Lines, Dehradun. Thereafter she was sent for training at Roshnabad, District- Hardwar. During her training period, she was served an order dated 23.11.2002 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun /respondent No.3, terminating her services by giving one month’s notice. The petitioner was treated as temporary employee and in the impugned order provisions of U.P. 2 Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 have been relied by the respondent No.3. 3. The contention of the respondents is that in the training center theft of money of the recruits was being committed and Rs. 4000/-was stolen from the box of female recruit Manisha Negi. After exhaustive inquiry by Senior Superintendent of Police, Hardwar it was revealed that the said theft was committed by female recruit Anita Tyagi i.e. petitioner. The petitioner also confessed her guilt regarding the theft of money committed with her trainee fellows, like Smt.Kusum Lata, Shobha Rawat and Lalita Devi. She also refunded the money stolen by her to some of the recruits. The petitioner also got the appointment in the department under the Dying in Harness Rules by concealing the fact that she was already married. She deliberately and knowingly showed herself unmarried in her application while she had been a married woman. All these facts were brought to the notice of S.S.P., Dehradun by S.S.P., Hardwar through letters dated 16.09.2002. The matter was entrusted to Circle Officer, Rishikesh for inquiry. On the basis of inquiry report submitted by Circle Officer, Rishikesh dated 18.11.2002, the S.S.P. Dehradun dispensed with the services of the petitioner by impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that before passing the impugned order of termination, no opportunity was provided to the petitioner for hearing, which is clear violation of the principle of nature justice, and the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is not disputed 3 that the petitioner was recruited under the Dying in Harness Rules. The impugned order shows that services of the petitioner were terminated relying upon the provisions of U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. The question, whether an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules is a permanent appointment or temporary appointment, has been decided by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case Ravi Karan Singh versus State of U.P. and others, reported in (1999) 3 U.P. Local Bodies and Educational Cases, Page 2263. Para 2 of the said judgment reads as under:- “2. In our opinion, an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules has to be treated as a permanent appointment otherwise if such appointment is treated to be a temporary appointment then it will follow that soon after the appointment the service can be terminated and this will nullify the very purpose of the Dying in Harness Rule because such appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family on the sudden death of the bread-earner. We, therefore, hold that the appointment under Dying in Harness Rule is a permanent appointment and not a temporary appointment and hence the provisions of U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 will not apply to such appointments.” 4. Thus, in view of the above position of law and the facts and circumstances of the case, the appointment 4 of the petitioner could not have been treated as temporary appointment and the proper course should have been followed in conducting the inquiry. The petitioner should have been given opportunity of hearing before terminating her services. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. However, it is open for the respondents to hold fresh departmental inquiry and if any charges are found proved against the petitioner and she is found guilty, appropriate order may be passed giving her opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. (P.C.Verma,J.) 02.05.2008 P.Singh