The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of one month's notice or one month's advance salary in lieu thereof for termination of services as per Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-permanent Service) Rules, 1960.

ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri Prashant Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Varun Kaushik, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 2-1-2018 passed by Commandant, 2nd Battalion, SAF, Gwalior thereby putting the services of the petitioner to an end under Regulation 59 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations.

2. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by order dated 9-4-2018 passed by Inspector General of Police, SAF, Gwalior Range, Gwalior. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a mercy appeal which too has been dismissed by the respondents by the impugned order dated 30-8-2018.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that an advertisement was issued in the year 2014 for recruitment on the post of Constable and after due medical and character verification, the petitioner was granted appointment by appointment order dated 1-1-2014 (Annexure P4). The petitioner was appointed on probation of two years. One of the conditions of the appointment order was that in the light of Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-permanent Service) Rules, 1960 (in short “the Rules, 1960”), the services of the petitioner can be discontinued by giving one month’s notice or one month’s advance salary in lieu thereof.

3-A. It is submitted that on account of sickness of the father of the petitioner, he remained absent from his duties w.e.f. 15-4-2017 and did not submit his joining thereafter. Therefore, the services of the petitioner were discontinued by order dated 2-1-2018 as per the provisions of Regulation 59 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations. It is the case of the petitioner that since the father of the petitioner was of old-age and had fallen sick which was in the knowledge of the Department, yet the services of the petitioner were put to an end. The petitioner preferred an appeal along with medical documents of the sickness of the father of the petitioner but the same was not taken into consideration and the appeal was rejected. The copy of the medical certificates of the sickness of the father of the petitioner have been filed as Annexure P5. Thereafter, the mercy appeal has also been dismissed.

4. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that in the impugned order dated 2-1-2018, the respondent No. 4 did not disclose the reasons for putting the services of the petitioner to an end but in the appeal, it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner was in habit of remaining on unauthorized absence and on one occasion, one minor penalty was also imposed. Multiple opportunities were given to the petitioner to improve his conduct but he did not improve. The petitioner had remained on unauthorized absence for 102 days from his Training Institute and when he was sent back to his original Unit, then again he remained on unauthorized absence for 54 days and accordingly, it was held that from 15-4-2017 the petitioner remained on unauthorized absence till passing of the impugned order dated 2-1-2018. It is submitted that the reason assigned by the Appellate Authority is stigmatic in nature and, therefore, a Departmental Enquiry should have been conducted against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the original period of probation was for two years and according to Regulation 59 of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, the period of probation can be extended by further period of six months for two times. It is submitted that since the petitioner was appointed in the year 2014 and although no specific order was issued thereby confirming him in service but as the probation period of the petitioner was not extended after completion of his three years (including the extension period), therefore, it has to be presumed that the petitioner was confirmed in the service and accordingly, his services could not have been terminated without holding a Departmental Enquiry.

5. P