IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 220 of 2010 Arun Singh Rana ….Petitioner. Versus The State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. S.C. Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. S.C. Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner was appointed as a constable on 9.4.2006 by a due process of law. Subsequently, the petitioner was sent on training and after successfully completing the training the petitioner was posted at Police Station Didihat, District Pithoragarh. On 3.7.2008 since his mother was ill at Khatima, the petitioner sought leave from his superior officer. Since it was not given, it is alleged that the petitioner went on unauthorized leave. This being the ground for dismissing the services of the petitioner. The Police Department though has invoked the provision of U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules 1975 (from hereinafter referred to as Rules) and by a telegraphic order terminated the services of the petitioner by giving him one month’s notice pay vide order dated 8.7.2008. Evidently the order dated 8.7.2008 is absolutely illegal inasmuch as the petitioner was not in a “temporary service” as defined under the Rules, 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.” 2 There is another aspect of this matter which is that in case the petitioner had done an act of indiscipline, he was then liable to be given an opportunity of hearing and thereafter his services could have only been terminated after holding a disciplinary enquiry in the matter. This again has not been done. Apart from this, under the U.P. Police Regulation No. 541 (2), even a probationer is liable to be given a show cause notice before dispensing with his services. Regulation No. 541 (2) of the U.P. Police Regulation is quoted as under: “(2) In any case in which either during or at the end of the period of probation, the Superintendent of Police is of opinion that a recruit is unlikely to make a good police officer he may dispense with his service. Before, however this is done the recruit must be supplied with specific complaints and grounds on which it is proposed to discharge him and then he should be called upon to show cause as to why he should not be discharged. The recruit must furnish his representation in writing and it will be duly considered by the Superintendent of Police before passing the orders of discharge.” Admittedly the probation of the petitioner has also come to an end. Therefore, in any case the petitioner was not on probation. Against the termination order dated 8.7.2008, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police which was dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2008. Consequently the petitioner moved a revision which was also dismissed on 8.1.2011. These two orders have absolutely no application of mind inasmuch as the said authorities have not gone into the merits of the matter. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that there is not only a violation of natural justice and fair play but a violation of U.P. Police Regulation as well, which is applicable in this case. Writ petition is therefore allowed. The 3 impugned orders dated 8.7.2008, 10.10.2008 and 8.1.2010 (Annexure Nos. 2, 4 and 6 respectively to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 1.8.2011 Avneet