Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... vs Amar Nath Singh on 23 January, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22969 of 2019
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Of Home Lko. And Ors.
Respondent :- Amar Nath Singh
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Avinash Chandra,Ajai Kumar Singh,Arvind Kumar Shukla,Shobhit Singh
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Addl. C.S.C for the petitioner-state of U.P and Sri Ajay kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent/opposite party.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the judgment and order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ?the Tribunal?), allowing Claim Petition no. 520 / V / H-M 3/ 1988 filed by the respondent.
3. The aforesaid claim petition had been filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 11.01.1985, whereby his services had been terminated. The Tribunal has allowed the claim petition by accepting the submissions made on behalf of the respondent that the U.P. Termination of Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ?Rules of 1975?) do not apply to his case, as he was working as a Police Constable in U.P. Police and his services were governed by the Police Regulations. The Tribunal relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Smt Ram Rachcha Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (30) LCD 687, and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Sahi v. State of U.P. and others, 2000 (5) SCC 152, wherein it had been held that the Regulations of 1975 do not apply to the persons employed in Police Force.
4. While assailing the aforesaid order, Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-State has invited our attention to a copy of the order dated 11.01.1985, whereby the Respondent/Opposite Party had been terminated. The aforesaid order states that the services of the respondent, who was working as a Police Constable, were on temporary basis and were not required any more and, therefore, his services of the temporary Police Constable can be terminated without assigning any reason and a mere mention of the Rules of 1975 would not affect the validity of the order of termination of temporary servant.
5. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Sahi (supra) was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in its decision in the case of State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home & others v. Rajendra Singh & another; AIR 2016 Allahabad 100, and the Full Bench concluded that the Rules of 1975 are not ipso facto applicable to temporary members of the police force and held as follows:-
"However, this does not mean that the services of such temporary employees cannot be terminated until rules or orders regulating them are not made under Section 2 or Section 46 (2) (c) of the Police Act. The services of such a person being purely temporary are terminable by an action simplicitor when they are not required or where the person appointed is unsuitable for being continued in service. The power to appoint necessarily inheres within it the power to terminate services. To hold that the State Government which has the power to appoint a member of the police force on a temporary basis does not have the power to terminate such a person from service would be an absurdity."
6. The Full Bench concluded as under:-
"the issue which has been framed for decision of the Full Bench would have to be answered by holding that a person who is appointed as a temporary police constable, can be terminated from service. Such a person is not governed by the provisions of Regulations 541 which applies to probationers. The rules which have been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, to wit, the Rules of 1975 would not be applicable to members of the police force. However, the power to terminate the services of a person who has been appointed on a temporary basis inheres in the power to appoint. The mere mention of the Rules of 1975 will not invalidate an order of termination."
7. A copy of the appointment order of the respondent was not filed along with the claim petition, there was nothing on record before the Tribunal, which established that the respondent was working not on temporary basis, but on probation, when his services were terminated. In para 24 of the written statement filed by the State of U.P. before the Tribunal, it was clearly stated that the respondent had been appointed on 06.07.1982 as a temporary recruit Police Constable and in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the respondent before the Tribunal, the aforesaid averment had been admitted. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra), and there is no illegality in the order dated 11.01.1985 terminating the temporary services of the respondent on the ground that the same were not required anymore.
8. The Tribunal has erred in setting aside the order of termination of the respondent on the ground that the termination order makes a mention of the Rules of 1975, which does not apply to a person employed under Police Force.
9. In view of the aforesaid decision and discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 520/ V / H-M 3/ 1988 is hereby quashed. is hereby quashed..
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 23.1.2023
Preeti/A.Nigam
