Judgment

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.

2. The appellant, Nepal Singh, was employed in a temporary capacity as Sub-Inspector of Police. 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. contracted 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. The appellant filed a reply and denied the charge. The oral testimony of about twelve witnesses for the prosecution and an almost equal number for the defence was recorded. 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. Accordingly. on March 12, 1970, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Range ordered the quashing of the disciplinary proceedings. It appears that no further action was taken and the proceedings were dropped.

3. 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-Inspectors who fell in any of the following three categories :

"1. Whose reputation and integrity is very low and/or

2. Who are generally involved in scandals, like drinking, immorality, etc. which blackens the face of the U. P. Police, and/or

3. Everywhere they are a big problem because they encourage gambling, excise offences, brothels, criminals, etc.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur drew up a list of such Sub-Inspectors on February 5, 1970 and directed them to appear before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Range on February 10, 1970 during his inspection of the district. The list included the name of the appellant with the note :

"A corrupt Officer, who is not straightforward. Married two wives against Government Servants Conduct Rules. Does not do his duty sincerely. Wherever he goes creates problems."

5. 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. 230/II-B-1953 dated January 30, 1953 that the appellants services were not required any more and were terminated with one months pay in lieu of notice.

6. The appellant filed a writ. petition. in the. High Court against the order terminating his services and on November 17, 1972 a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the order of termination was passed bona fide, that it was an order of termination simpliciter, and that it did not constitute the removal of the appellant from service. 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. The learned judges have taken the view that the case in respect of the appellant was covered by the first and third of the three categories enumerated earlier, that is to say, his integrity was low and he was a problem officer "who encouraged gambling, excise offences, brothels, criminals, etc." The allegation that he had married two wives against the Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956, the learned Judges said, did not bring him within any of the three categories as, in their view, the second marriage without prior permission of the Government gave rise merely to a technic