IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9569 of 2004 SANJAY KUMAR SON OF PRADEEP NARAYAN YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAHPUR, P.S. SAHARSA, DISTRICT SAHARSA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MAGADH RANGE, GAYA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GAYA. ----------- 3 05/08/2010 Admitted position is that the petitioner was recruited as a constable and was still undergoing training and had just completed about six months in that capacity. He had to complete a period of two years on probation under rule 668 of the Bihar Police Manual before being conferred permanent status. While the petitioner was posted at Saharsa, a criminal case came to be instituted with regard to a loot of 23 lacs of rupees which was drawn from the Bank for disbursement of salary to the constables. Name of the petitioner figured during the course of investigation. It is not disputed that he came to be chargesheeted as well in the said case but has now been acquitted by the trial court. But based on the material which came against the petitioner for his involvement in a serious crime, the respondents authorities decided to - 2 - terminate the period of probation of the petitioner by virtue of annexure-8 dated 27.12.2000. Petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the said order being illegal. Submissions are that removal amounts to stigma. No enquiry as such was held and that there are conflicting material which has come during investigation about the complicity of the petitioner. All these submissions could have merited consideration provided the petitioner was a confirmed employee. The fact that the petitioner’s name figured in a criminal case while he was still under probation was good enough for the authorities not to retain him in Force any more. No enquiry as such was required to be held for a probationer and his assertion that the removal amounts to stigma in the background in which he came to be removed is no stigma in the eye of law because it only states a fact that the name of the petitioner had come in a criminal matter while still undergoing training. Petitioner has no exalted status to remain in service in the background in which the impugned order came to be passed; more so since he was a probationer. Subsequent event of acquittal of the petitioner - 3 - by the trial court has no reflection on the order of removal of the petitioner which was passed way back in the year 2000 by virtue of annexure-8. This writ application is dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)