By the Court.—This Special Appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules to assail the judgment dated 8 September 2015 of a learned Judge of this Court by which Writ-A No. 13769 of 1993 that was filed for quashing the order dated 30 March 1993 was dismissed. The writ petitioner who had been recruited as a constable in The U.P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary (PAC) was informed by the order dated 30 March 1993 that his services were no longer required and that they would come to an end on receipt of the notice in terms of the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (1975 Rules).

2. The learned Judge noticed that the allegations that had been made against the writ petitioner were very serious in nature as they related to an incident when the writ petitioner was posted at the Taj Mahal Hotel, Delhi in connection with the security of the delegation that had come from Indonesia headed by the Foreign Minister. The incident is said to have taken place on 14 March, 1993. A lady delegate was staying in Room No. 930 and when all the delegates had left, the writ petitioner knocked on the door of the room and asked the lady delegate for a glass of water. The lady delegate permitted the writ petitioner to enter the room and offered a glass of water. After about twenty-twenty five minutes, the writ petitioner again knocked and wanted a glass of water. He was allowed to enter the room and when the lady delegate turned to pour water in the glass for him, the writ petitioner bent and caressed her legs and thereafter tried to lift her dress from behind. The lady delegate strongly protested and raised an alarm. The writ petitioner immediately left the room. The incident caused considerable embarrassment to the Government of India as it related to misbehavior with a foreign lady delegate accompanying the Foreign Minister of Indonesia and had brought national honour to disrepute. In fact, the Government of India had to offer a public apology to the lady delegate and the Government of Indonesia for this behavior of the writ petitioner. The learned Judge after taking note of this incident and the fact that the writ petitioner was a temporary recruit, upheld the order and dismissed the writ petition.

3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the 1975 Rules would have no application to the case of the petitioner since the service conditions of members of PAC are governed by The Uttar Pradesh Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Act, 1948 (1948 Act) read with Police Act, 1861 and the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations (Police Regulations) framed thereunder. The submission of learned Senior Counsel is that action could have been taken against the writ petitioner only in accordance with Regulation 541 of the Police Regulations and that the impugned order is in the teeth of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2000 SC 1706. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the order is punitive in nature and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State has, however, submitted that since the writ petitioner was recruited as a temporary constable in the PAC, Regulation 541 of the Police Regulation would not be applicable and that the impugned order dated 30 March 1993 by which the services of the writ petitioner had been dispensed in accordance with the 1975 Rules, does not suffer from any illegality. Learned Standing Counsel also submitted that order is not punitive in nature.

5. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The writ petitioner was recruited as constable in PAC on 3 November 1986. The writ petitioner stated in the writ petition that appointment letter was not issued. In the counter-affidavit, a specific stand has been taken that the writ petitioner was appointed on purely temporary basis and t