The order recites that the services of the appellant, are numbermore required and that he will be companysidered to have ceased to be in service The appellant filed a writ petition against the order terminating his services, and claimed that the order companytravened Article 311 2 of the Constitution inasmuch as it was an order imposing the punishment of dismissal or removal from service without satisfying the companyditions prescribed in that provision.
It was also alleged that the order was passed mala fide.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13 3 1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Spl.
Meanwhile, on March 8, 1970, the Inspector General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, had issued a letter to all Superintendents of Police in the State directing them to submit a list of Sub Inspectors whose reputation and integrity were very low or who were generally involved in scandalous companyduct, drinking, immorality or other acts injurious to the reputation of the Police service or who were involved in encouraging crime.
The Superintendent of Police, Shahjanpur companymenced disciplinary proceedings against the appellant on the charge that he had violated Rule 29 of the P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 inasmuch as without prior permission of the Government he had companytracted a second marriage in November, 1964, while his first wife was alive.
The Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur included the name of the appellant in the list submitted by him.
But at this stage the Deputy Inspector General of Police Bareilly made an order on March 12, 1970 quashing the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the offence had been companymitted at Pithoragarh, situated in a different police range, and therefore the proceedings taken against the appellant were incompetent.
On April 27, 1970, the Deputy Inspector General of Police made an order terminating the services of the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Superintendent of Police recorded evidence.
The charge was denied by the appellant.
Appeal No.
621 of 1973.
He was posted at Shahajahanpur in 1969.
9/73 .
J. Francis for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a writ petition filed by a police officer aggrieved by the termination of his services.
P. Rana for the Respondent.
The appellant was a temporary Sub Inspector of Police.
