Brijesh Kumar, C. J.-

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated July 30,1997 passed in Civil Rule No. 3446 of 1994 by which the said civil rule was dismissed. The petitioner-appellant had impugned the order of termination of his services in the above noted civil rule. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the present appeal has been preferred by the petitioner-appellant.

2. The facts which are not in dispute are that the Govt of Arunachal Pradesh advertised for recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police in response thereof the petitioner-appellant offered himself as a candidate. A list of selected candidates was published, the petitioner-appellant being at serial No. 1 in the said list. On the basis of the selection the petitioner-appellant was given an appointment by order dated January 20, 1994, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure A to the civil rule. The said letter of appointment says that the petitioner-appellant and others were being appointed in purely temporary capacity as Sub Inspector under the Arunachal Pradesh Police. The order further provides that the appointees would be on probation for a period of 2 years only. The appointments were made subject to satisfactory verification of character and antecedents and successful completion of training. On the basis of the said order the petitioner-appellant along with others was undergoing the training when the order terminating his services dated July 21,1994 was passed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The order has been issued from the office of the Inspector General of Police, Itanagar passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh.

3. The petitioner-appellant challenged the order of termination of his services on several grounds which did not find favour with the learned Single Judge and the petition was dismissed. So far as the question as- to the competence of the Deputy Inspector General of Police passing the order of termination is concerned, the case of the respondents was that during the period the impugned order of termination was passed by Inspector General of Police was on leave and the Deputy Inspector General of Police was holding the current charge of the Inspector General of Police. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition that during the relevant period the Deputy Inspector General of Police was officiating as the Inspector General of Police as authorised by the Govt of Arunachal Pradesh since the Inspector General of Police was on leave, hence he was quite competent to discharge the function of the Inspector General of Police in exercise whereof he passed the impugned order. He has also placed before us a copy of the order dated February 8, 1994 issued by the Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Home Department by which the Inspector General of Police was granted leave by the Governor and if was further provided that the Deputy Inspector General of Police (West), Arunachal Pradesh would hold the current charge of the Inspector General of Police during the period from 2.7.94 to 22.7.94. The order of termination of the service of the petitioner-appellant was passed during the above period. That being the position, in our view, the Deputy Inspector General of Police by holding the charge of the office of the Inspector General of Police was competent to issue the order of termination of the services of the petitioner-appellant.

4. The main contention which has been vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the appellant before us is that the services of the petitioner-appellant could not be terminated by a 'bald' order of termination as the petitioner-appellant was undergoing the training under the relevant Rules as against the appointment on the substantive post of Sub Inspector of Police. Therefore, before passing an d order of termination of his services

Click Here to Read the rest of this document