The oral testimony of about twelve witnesses for the prosecution and an almost equal number for the defence was recorded.
Wherever he goes creates problem.
He was serving at Shahjahanpur in 1968 when the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur initiated disciplinary proceedings under S.7 of the Police Act against him on the charge that while posted at Pithoragarh he had, in November, 1964, companytracted a second marriage while his first wife was alive, and as this was done without obtaining the prior permission of the Government the appellant had violated Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956.
About this time the Inspector General of Police, Uttar Pradesh issued a circular letter to the Superintendents of Police throughout the State requiring them to submit a list of Sub Inspector who fell in any of the following three categories Whose reputation and integrity is very low and or Who are generally involved in scandals, like drinking, immorality etc.
621 of 1975 Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 13th March, 1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.9 of 1973.
The appellant filed a reply and denied the charge.
That view was endorsed, on appeal filed by the appellant, by a Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment and order dated March 13,1973.
Married two wives against Government Servants Conduct Rules.
It appears that numberfurther action was taken and the proceedings were dropped.
Thereupon, on April 27,1970 the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Range, made an order purporting to be under the rules published by Notification No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Accordingly, on March 12,1 970, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Range ordered the quashing of the disciplinary proceedings.
230/II B 1953 dated January 30, 1953 that the appellants services were number required any more and were terminated with one months pay in lieu of numberice.
Does number do his duty sincerely.
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court against the order terminating his services and on November 17,1972 a learned A Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the order of termination was passed bonafide that it was an order of termination simpliciter, and that it did number companystitute the removal of the appellant from service.
The Judgment of the Court WCIS delivered by PATHAK, J This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appellants writ petition against an order terminating his services.
K Garg and M. Qamaruddin for the Appellant.
The appellant, Nepal Singh, was employed in a temporary capacity as Sub Inspector of Police.
Prithvi Raj and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for the Respondent.
But in January, 1970 the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur wrote to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Range that as the act alleged against the appellant related to the district of Pithoragarh the disciplinary proceedings taken by him would be without jurisdiction unless there was an existing order transferring the proceedings from Pithoragarh to Shahjahanpur.
