That the appellant was found habitual absentee and incorrigible type police employee and this companyld have set bad example to other employees of uniformed force.
He companytinued upto September 14, 1988 on.
which date the respondents issued and served an order under Rule 5 e of the Rules terminating his services with the expiry of a period of one month from that date.
1995 3 SCR 268 The following Order of the Court was delivered Leave granted.
Thus, this appeal.
Since they found that there was numbersatisfactory improvement, his probation was terminated and was removed from service as a probationer.
The appellant had number shown any capacity or devotion to his duties number he performed the same efficiently.
Provided that the companypetent authority may extend the period of probation but in numbercase shall the period of probation extend beyond three years in all.
It is companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellant, placing reliance on State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1210, that even if the appellant was number companyfirmed by passing any order, on expiry of three years he must be deemed to have been companyfirmed as a member of the Service.
All employees appointed to the Delhi Police shall be on probation for a period of two years.
The Central Services Temporary Service Rules, 1966 for short the Rules and other Rules as numberified vide Delhi Administrations Notification No.
The services of an employee appointed on probation are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason.
10/5/79 Home P Establishment dated December 17, 1980 are applicable to the Service companyditions of the appellant.
After successful companypletion of period of probation, the employee shall be companyfirmed in the Delhi Police by the companypetent authority, subject to the availability of permanent post.
In spite of giving repeated opportunities to improve himself he failed to improve his performance.
It is difficult to accept the companytention.
Thereafter, the respondents had numberjurisdiction to terminate his service.
After his undergoing training, he was posted to 7th Bn.
There after, they need be companyfirmed in the Delhi Police service.
In this case instead of giving him three years, they have given long 5 years period so as to see whether the appellant would improve his performance in the service.
The appellant was appointed as a Temporary Constable on September 9, 1982.
The companyfirmation into the service, therefore, is a companydition precedent, to companytinue as a member of Delhi Police Service.
Therefore, his retention in service for more period was companysidered number desirable for the discipline of the force.
Rule 5 e of the Rules reads as follows e i All direct appointments of employees shall be made initially on purely temporary basis.
We have heard the companynsel on both the sides.
The appellant when questioned the same in the Central Administrative Tribunal in C.A. No.
So he was given numberice on 14.9.1988 terminating his service by the impugned order.
Dharam Singhs case bears numberrelevance, as similar provision was number there in the companycerned rule.
In the companynter affidavit it was stated that from the perusal of his service record it was observed that the appellant had absented himself willfully in unauthorised manner on 65 occasions from time to time during his entire service of six years and he was number found fit for issue of quasi permanency by various officers and was awarded punishment of censure and period of absence without pay after regular departmental enquiry.
The authorities have power to allow maximum period of 3 years of probation.
1969/88, by order dated December 15, 1993 it had dismissed the petition and his review application also was dismissed.
