Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Since pleadings are complete, as requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties, this matter has been heard and is being decided under the Rules of the Court at this stage.

3. The order impugned in this writ petition is that of termination of petitioner in exercise of power under U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the “1975 Rules”) vide order dated 25.7.2007 passed by the Commandant 41st Bn. P.A.C., Ghaziabad on the ground that the petitioner’s services are no longer required.

4. The facts, in brief, stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was selected for the post of Constable against a permanent post through process of selection consisting of written test, physical examination and interview, result whereof was declared in August, 2006. After clearance by the Medical Board, the petitioner was appointed as Constable in P.A.C. and sent on training on 2.9.2006. He completed his initial training of J.T.C. course by 08.10.2006 and thereafter sent for R.T.C. course at 6th Bn. P.A.C., Meerut. While undergoing training, impugned order of termination was passed on 25.7.2007 by the Commandant 41st Bn. P.A.C., Ghaziabad.

5. Sri Gautam has assailed the impugned order of termination mainly on three grounds :

(1) The impugned order having been passed in purported exercse of power under 1975 Rules is illegal and without jurisdiction since the aforesaid Rules are not applicable to a police constable who governed by the provisions of U.P. P.A.C. Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1948”) read with the Police Act, 1861 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1861”) and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder.

(2) The impugned order has been passed in violation of U.P. Police Regulations (hereinafter referred to the “Regulations”), para 541, which is applicable in the case in hand and provides the procedure for discharge of a probationer constable. The said procedure has not been followed.

(3) The impugned order is founded on the alleged act of misconduct and since no regular departmental inquiry has been conducted, it is in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India read with U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the “1991 Rules”).

6. Learned Standing counsel relying on the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents stated that in the night of 6.6.2007, the petitioner unauthorizedly and without prior permission left the premises of 6th Bn. P.A.C., Meerut and went to a petrol pump at about 8.00 pm in the evening where he quarrel with the salesmen of petrol pump at Garh Road, Meerut as a result whereof a first information report was lodged being Case Crime No. 23 of 2007, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commandant, 41st Bn. P.A.C., Ghaziabad who finds the charge of quarrel, abuse and unauthorised absence from the premises proved as a result whereof he has been terminated in exercise of power under Section 1975 Rules. He refer to preliminary inquiry report submitted by Sri Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Assistant Commandant, 41st Bn. P.A.C., Ghaziabad dated 12.7.2007 and also the report of Sri Chhatrapal Singh, Incharge Company Commander, R.T.C., 6th Bn. P.A.C., Meerut dated 07.6.2007.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The first question is whether the services of petitioner could have been terminated in exercise of power under 1975 Rules. The constables in P.A.C. are governed by the Act, 1948. Section 5 of Act 1948 apply Act 1861 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder in the matters not provided in Act, 1948. That is how Police Regulations become applicable to the petitioner. vide Section 13 of 1948 Act, wherever the