9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Status of the appellant as a probationer or permanent employee. 2. Nature of the termination order - whether it was punitive or simpliciter. 3. Compliance with procedural requirements under relevant regulations. Detailed Analysis: 1. Status of the Appellant: The appellant was recruited as a Constable and placed on probation for two years. The contention was whether the appellant acquired a 'permanent' status after completing the probationary period. The court clarified that mere completion of the probationary period does not confer permanent status unless a specific order of confirmation is issued. The relevant provision, Para 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations, indicates that recruits are on probation for two years, and confirmation requires approval by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The court referenced precedents like *State of Punjab vs. Dharam Singh* and *Partap Singh vs. U.T. of Chandigarh*, which ruled out automatic confirmation and emphasized the necessity of a specific order for acquiring permanent status. 2. Nature of the Termination Order: The core issue was whether the termination was punitive in nature. The appellant argued that the termination, though seemingly innocuous, was actually punitive because it was based on allegations of misconduct. The court examined the distinction between 'motive' and 'foundation' of the termination order. It cited several precedents, including *Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India* and *State of Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prasad*, which established that an order is punitive if it is founded on allegations of misconduct rather than general unsuitability. The court found that the termination was based on a preliminary enquiry into the appellant's involvement in a quarrel, making the order punitive as it was founded on misconduct. 3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements: The court also examined whether the termination complied with procedural requirements under Para 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations. The regulation mandates that a probationer must be informed of specific complaints and given an opportunity to show cause before termination. The court noted that this procedure was not followed in the appellant's case. The appellant was not issued any notice or given an opportunity to explain his position regarding the allegations. The court referenced *State of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das* and *Ranendra Chandra Banerjee vs. Union of India*, which emphasized the necessity of following prescribed procedures before terminating a probationer's services. Conclusion: The court concluded that the termination order was punitive in nature and not a simple termination simpliciter. The procedural requirements under Para 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations were not followed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the U.P. Public Services Tribunal's decision was restored, without any order as to costs.
|
