IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 173 of 2007 (S/B) State and another .….…… Petitioners. Versus Vijay Kumar Upadhyay and another ………. Respondents. ………….. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the petitioners. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. Tarun Agarwala, J. (Oral) List has been revised. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 is not present. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners. The services of the respondent no. 1 was terminated by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital by an order dated 26th August, 1991 by invoking Rule 3 of the U. P. Temporary Government Servants ( Termination of Service), Rule 1975. The Constable /respondent no. 1 being aggrieved by the order of termination filed a claim application before the Public Service Tribunal, which was allowed by an order dated 28th March, 2007. The order of termination was set aside and the petitioners were directed to reinstate the Constable. The State Government being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal has filed the present writ petition. The Tribunal held that the petitioners have not followed the procedure provided under paragraph 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court finds that there is nothing to indicate either in any paragraph of the writ petition or in the written statement filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal to indicate that the Constable was in temporary services i.e. 2 officiating or substantive service on a temporary basis or officiating service on the permanent basis under the Government. On the other hand, the averments made in the written statement of the petitioners filed before the Tribunal indicate that the Constable was recruited in the Police and was sent for training and during this period he absented himself on several occasions, which led the petitioners to pass an order of termination by invoking the Rules of 1975. The Tribunal has held that paragraph 540 of the U.P. Police Regulations had to be followed, which admittedly had not been done by the petitioners. Nothing has been indicated by the petitioners that the Rules of 1975 are applicable and paragraph 540 of the Regulations are not applicable. Further, no evidence has been filed by way of production of appointment letter to show that the respondent no. 1/Constable was appointed in temporary service. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 02.12.2011 02.12.2011 Kaushal 3