ORDER P. K. Tare, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 8-7-1963 passed by the Inspector-General of Police terminating the services of the petitioner as a Sub-Inspector of Police on one month's notice on the assumption that the petitioner was a temporary Sub-Inspector. The petitioner's contention has been that he has been a probationary Sub-Inspector appointed with effect from 1-1-1959 on two years' probation. His period of probation was never extended. Being an employee on probation, his services could not be terminated in the manner after the period of probation was over and he was continued in service. It was also alleged that certain false reports had been made by interested political workers; and as a result, a departmental enquiry was also started and a criminal prosecution was launched against the petitioner. But the departmental enquiry was dropped as the allegations were found to be baseless. Similarly the criminal Court discharged the petitioner by observing that the allegations regarding a criminal offence were baseless and mischievous. It has been contended by the petitioner that as no departmental action or legal action in a Court of law could be taken, the order of termination of services has been passed so as to bypass those impediments. As such it is contended that the socalled order of termination of services is a fraud on the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and the rules and regulations by which the petitioner is governed. On behalf of the State, the stand is that the petitioner has been a temporary employee, and not a probationer. It is admitted that a criminal prosecution was launched and a departmental enquiry was also instituted. But as the allegations were found to be without foundation, the departmental enquiry was dropped and the criminal Court discharged the petitioner. It is further alleged that the action taken for terminating the services has nothing to do with the departmental enquiry or with the criminal charge. As the petitioner is a temporary Sub-Inspector, his services can be terminated on one month's notice and the order passed does not cast any reflection on the petitioner in his capacity as a public servant. Therefore, the same cannot be challenged in a writ petition. As the petitioner is a temporary Sub-Inspector, his services can be terminated on one month's notice and the order passed does not cast any reflection on the petitioner in his capacity as a public servant. Therefore, the same cannot be challenged in a writ petition. The law on this aspect is more or less settled by the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah Vs. The Union of India (UOI), . I may summarise the conclusions of their Lordships by stating that the services of a temporary servant can always be terminated in the terms of the contract. Such termination would not be actionable in a Court of law unless it is found that a fraud on the statute has been committed. But all the same, a public servant cannot be dismissed or removed without complying with the requirements of Article 311 of the Constitution. Similarly, if the services of a probationer are dispensed with during the period of probation on the ground that he is not found fit or he is not upto the standard, such order dispensing with his services also cannot be actionable unless it is established that a fraud on the statute has been committed. However, even a probationer cannot be dismissed or removed without complying with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. In the present case, the order of appointment (to be found at page 73 of the paper book) is prima facie an order of appointment of the petitioner as a temporary Sub-Inspector with effect from 1-1-1959. Similarly, the order of termination of services, dated 8-7-1963 (to be found at page 41 of the paper book) is also a simple order of termination of service on one month's salary in lieu of notice. Thus the order terminating the services cannot be said to be for any ulterior purpose, or it cannot be construed to be a fraud on the statute. If the petitioner's appointment be a temporary Sub-Inspector, the State would have the right to terminate his service on one month's notice. But another question arises whether the petitioner was in fact a temporary Sub-Inspector or a probationer Sub-Inspector. If the petitioner's appointment be a temporary Sub-Inspector, the State would have the right to terminate his service on one month's notice. But another question arises whether the petitioner was in fact a temporary Sub-Inspector or a probationer Sub-Inspector. It is necessary to examine this question in some details as some confusion is created on account of the fact that the petitioner has been described as a temporary Sub-Inspector by the Inspector-General of Police, while in some other correspondence made on behalf of the State Government and the Superintendent of Police, he has been described as a probationer Sub-Inspector. We are also required to scrutinise whether a temporary Sub-Inspector could be appointed by the State Government. In this connection, the petitioner's contention is that although described as a temporary Sub-Inspector, his appointment should be held to have been on a probationary basis. The agreement between the petitioner and the Inspector-General of Police (annexure I) (to be found at page 71 of the paper book) after he passed from the M. P. Police College, Sagar, would indicate that the petitioner's appointment would be more or less on a probationary basis. Rule 48 of the Police Regulations framed by the State Government by virtue of powers conferred by section 46(2) read with sections 2 and 7 of the Police Act, 1861 would indicate that Sub-Inspectors can be appointed in two ways only. One is a category of Departmental Sub-Inspectors, who are promoted from the grade of Assistant Sub-Inspectors or Head Constables. In their case, it is not necessary to keep them on probation. It is discretionary with the authorities whether to keep them on probation or otherwise. But as regards candidates, who pass from the Sagar Police College they have to be kept on probation for a period of two years or for such extended period as the appropriate authority may think proper. They are described as outsider Sub Inspector in the Police Regulations. The Police Regulations atleast do not provide for appointment of outside candidates as temporary Sub Inspectors. Therefore, the position is that unless the respondent is able to invoke the provisions of the Civil Service Regulations, which provide for the appointment of temporary employees, any outsider candidate appointed as a Sub Inspector will undoubtedly be a probationary Sub-Inspector. Prior to the enactment of the 1950 Constitution, Police Services were excluded from the operation of the Civil Service Regulations. Prior to the enactment of the 1950 Constitution, Police Services were excluded from the operation of the Civil Service Regulations. They had a separate Code of their own. But they were only subject to the provisions of section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. But in the 1950 Constitution that distinction has been abolished and every Police Officer is deemed to hold a civil post either under the Union or under the State. As such the post of a police officer being a civil post under an appropriate Government, the State Government or its officers can certainly make temporary appointment of police officers in case it is found that relevant provisions of the Civil Service Regulations have been applied by the State Government to the Police Department. On the facts of this case, it is also clear that if the petitioner be a temporary Sub-Inspector validly appointed in that capacity, the order of termination of his services calls for no interference. But if on the other hand, it be found that the petitioner's appointment is in a probationary capacity, in that event the order of termination cannot be sustained either on facts or in law; and it will have to be quashed. The appointment was with effect from 1-1-1959, while the purported termination was on 8-7-1963, that is much after the period of probation had ended and there does not appear to be on record any material to indicate that the period of probation was ever extended. The service of a probationary employee cannot be terminated after the period of probation unless it is extended. His services can, however, be discharged during the period of probation. But such is not the present case; and, therefore, the present case solely depends on the fact whether the petitioner's appointment should be construed to be in a probationary or a temporary capacity. The Police Regulations which have the status of statutory rules framed in exercise of powers u/s 46(2) read with sections 2 and 7 of the Police Act, 1861 provide for manner of appointment of police officers. As such, the matters concerning members of the police force will primarily be governed by the Police Act, 1861 or any similar local enactments and the Police Regulations. As such, the matters concerning members of the police force will primarily be governed by the Police Act, 1861 or any similar local enactments and the Police Regulations. Civil Service Regulations, or for the matter of that, fundamental rules framed under those Regulations will be attracted in case they have been adopted by the State Government so as to be applicable to the member of the Police force and further if those provisions do not come in conflict with the specific provisions of the Police Regulations. At this stage, it may be relevant to reproduce clause 48 of the Police Regulations which is as follows : (1) The number of posts available for students of the Central Provinces Police College will depend on the number of vacancies in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors, selection being made according to the seniority in the final examination. (2) A probationer (including a departmental candidate put on probation) who is considered unfit for confirmation shall be removed from office at the end of probationary period of 2 years fixed at the time of appointment unless in the meanwhile that period is further extended under sanction of the Provincial Government which shall be given in exceptional circumstances. On leaving the Training College - (a) Outside candidates will be kept on probation for 2 years (which may be extended by the Range Deputy Inspector-General) during which time they will be posted to districts for practical training. (b) Departmental candidates will be confirmed as Sub-Inspectors, or kept on probation for 2 years, according to the orders of the Central Committee at the time of their selection. This rule provides for appointment of the kinds of Sub-Inspector. Candidates passing from the M. P. Police Training College, Sagar are considered to be outside candidate, who are kept on probation for two years. The Departmental candidates who are generally Assistant Sub-Inspectors or Head Constables and who are promoted as Sub-Inspectors may or may not be kept on probation. It is clear that the Police Regulations provide for training of Sub-Inspectors and their appointment on a probationary basis. There is no provision in the Police Regulations for appointments of temporary nature. Of course, temporary appointment can be made only under Civil Service Regulations in case they have been adopted by the State Government for the purpose of applicability to members of the Police force. There is no provision in the Police Regulations for appointments of temporary nature. Of course, temporary appointment can be made only under Civil Service Regulations in case they have been adopted by the State Government for the purpose of applicability to members of the Police force. By virtue of notification No. 10175-2593-II-B (1), dated 4-12-1964 published in the M. P. Gazette, dated 18-12-1964, the M. P. Police Regulations have been extended to other areas and also regulations mentioned in those rules have been amended. As such, the Police Regulations now apply to the entire State of Madhya Pradesh with effect from the date of publication of the rules in the Official Gazette. The amendment mentioned in the first schedule do not purport to amend regulation 48, although other regulations have been amended. It does not appear from the said amendments that the other parts of the Civil Service Regulations have been applied by the State Government to the members of the Police force. As such, members of the Police force are not governed by the Civil Service Regulations except to the extent of Government Servants Conduct Rules which alone appear to have been applied to them. Consequently I am of opinion that so far as a member of the Police force is concerned, there is no provision in the Regulations for appointment on a temporary basis. The further question arises whether the appointment in a temporary capacity should be construed to be no appointment under the law, or an appointment deemed to have been made in accordance with the provisions of the law. There may be some cases where the appointment being invalid initially may not confer any right on a Government servant and the result may be that he may not be able to exercise any right. I would like to draw a distinction between cases where the appointment is initially invalid or has been made by an authority not empowered to act. In those cases the Government servant so appointed cannot claim any rights so as to approach a Court of law for relief on the basis of such invalid appointment. But I would further distinguish the case of a person who has been validly appointed, though irregularly. In those cases the Government servant so appointed cannot claim any rights so as to approach a Court of law for relief on the basis of such invalid appointment. But I would further distinguish the case of a person who has been validly appointed, though irregularly. In the present case the appointment was made by the Inspector-General of Police well within the statutory powers conferred on him, but an irregularity was committed inasmuch as instead of mentioning the appointment on a probationary basis, the Inspector-General of Police purported to make it on a temporary basis. As the appointment is initially valid, I am of opinion that the appointment ought to be construed to be on a probationary basis, although the Inspector-General might have used a wrong phraseology by describing the petitioner as a temporary Sub-Inspector. It cannot be urged on behalf of the State that the petitioner did not hold the post of a Police Officer at all. From this point of view, I would construe the order of appointment to mean that the petitioner's appointment was on a probationary basis. If the petitioner be a probationer Sub-Inspector, then there can be no doubt that his services could not have been terminated on one month's notice. Of course during the period of probation, he could be discharged on the ground that his work was unsatisfactory or that he was unfit for the post. But actually he was continued for more than 4 years before the purported termination. His services could not be terminated in the manner done by the Inspector-General of Police. He not having been discharged during the period of probation, would be entitled to contend that he can only be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank after complying with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be doubted that the services of a probationer not during the period of probation specially in the absence of any order of extension of the period of probation cannot be terminated on one month's notice. As a result, I would hold that the socalled order of termination of service on one month's notice amounted to removal of the petitioner from a civil post as a probationary Sub-Inspector contrary to Article 311(2) of the Constitution as also the Police Regulations. As a result, I would hold that the socalled order of termination of service on one month's notice amounted to removal of the petitioner from a civil post as a probationary Sub-Inspector contrary to Article 311(2) of the Constitution as also the Police Regulations. To conclude, I would allow the petition by quashing the order impugned and by holding that the petitioner continues to be a probationary Sub-Inspector who can only be dismissed or removed after holding a proper Departmental enquiry or who can be discharged from service during the period of probation on the ground of unsuitability for the post or for unsatisfactory work As a result, this petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 100 if certified. Krishnan, J. - I have studied the judgment prepared by my learned brother and with all respect, I feel that I should disagree. To my mind, the straight question is whether, being a temporary employee, the petitioner can make any grievance with reference to Article 311 of the Constitution of India, of his services being terminated with one month-notice as per contract without any remark about his abilities and character. We are however, not concerned with the merits of the allegations against him on which at one stage the Department had wanted to proceed. Any way, the proceedings having been dropped and the criminal case having ended in acquittal, the petitioner's services could still be dispensed with without a separate proceeding if he was a temporary servant, but could not be without such a proceeding, if his service was something more than a temporary. I find it difficult to agree to the line of argument by which my learned brother finds that though he was actually appointed as a temporary servant, the petitioner could not have been so appointed and, therefore, his service, though temporary, should still be deemed something more than temporary, say on probation with a permanent lien on the service, and therefore, his removal, though without any black-mark, could still require a proceeding under Article 311. I feel that all this ingenuity is not called for, when it is found as fact that the appointment was a temporary one and the removal was without any black-mark on the character or ability of the employees, when it has been clearly laid down by the Courts including the Supreme Court that straight termination in terms of the contract without any comment on the abilities or characters of the temporary employees is not justiciable unless it is found that there is a fraud on the law. In this case, of course, there is no such fraud, there is no black-mark on the character or the ability of the employee, the appointment is of course temporary and the requirements of the contract have been implemented. The judgment of my learned brother is based upon the following thesis: (a) The appointment was temporary as mentioned in the order though in some correspondence some of the departmental employees have loosely spoken of the petitioner's being a probationary Sub-Inspector ; (b) Under the Police Regulations, no such temporary appointment could be made; (c) This incompetency of the Police Department to make any temporary appointment does not invalidate the appointment itself but converts it to the nearest corresponding employment the Department was competent to make, that is, that of a probationary Sub-Inspector; (d) A probationary Sub-Inspector may not be removed without a proceeding under Article 311 ; (e) Consequently, the removal is illegal and the petitioner should be reinstated to be removed after a proper proceeding. I do not accept any but thesis (a), which is of course patent from the appointment-order. To me it for straight way that the present termination of service in terms of the contract was valid and nothing more was to be done. Regarding (b), I do not accept the proposition that the Police Department is incompetent to make temporary appointments. The Civil Service Regulations, as in force in the State, are applicable to all civil departments including the Police. Within that Department, there are the Police Regulations which naturally prevail wherever there is conflict between them and the Civil Service Regulations; but in a field like temporary employment, for which there is no special Police Regulation, the Civil Service Regulations, as in force in this State, apply. Accordingly, the temporary appointment was in order. Within that Department, there are the Police Regulations which naturally prevail wherever there is conflict between them and the Civil Service Regulations; but in a field like temporary employment, for which there is no special Police Regulation, the Civil Service Regulations, as in force in this State, apply. Accordingly, the temporary appointment was in order. Regarding (c), as far as I see, it is altogether immaterial for our purposes whether or not a Department could have employed anybody on a temporary basis. The problem really is whether it did employ the petitioner as a temporary Sub-Inspector, which of course it did. Now, having been appointed as a temporary Sub-Inspector the petitioner cannot ask for some other status, nor is it proper for this Court to substitute, for the actual terms of the employment, some other terms simply because we imagine that the actual terms would not be proper or legal. Assuming that the employment was one which could not be made under the Regulations, then the employee's tenure is precarious. He will be entitled only to payment for work actually done, calculated in terms of the contract. That way also his services can be terminated without his being called upon to show cause subject to his being paid for the period of actual service and for the notice period and is not being turned out with a black-mark. I altogether fail to see how, even on the theory of departmental incompetency of temporary appointment, the petitioner can claim to be a probationer or a temporary employee. Regarding (d), I am of opinion that a probationary Sub-Inspector can be removed and sent away without a proceeding under Article 311, unless he has been confirmed during the interval. Of course if a probationary officer is to be sent away with a black-mark, then proceedings would be necessary. It is unnecessary to expand this because this problem does not arise here as the petitioner was not a probationary Sub-Inspector. Even my learned brother does not hold that he was appointed as such but attributes to him that capacity because, in his opinion, the Department could not have made a temporary appointment. Neither was the petitioner confirmed nor is he being sent with a black-mark. Coming to (e), it follows from my approach that the termination of the petitioner's services was legal and does not call for any interference by this Court. Neither was the petitioner confirmed nor is he being sent with a black-mark. Coming to (e), it follows from my approach that the termination of the petitioner's services was legal and does not call for any interference by this Court. I would accordingly dismiss this petition and award hearing fee of Rs. 100-00 to the opposite party. Opinion Pandey, J. -I have studied the orders delivered by my learned brothers, Tare and Krishnan JJ. I am of the view, though for different reasons, that the petitioner's services were legally terminated and there is no ground for interference by this Court. The petitioner was a candidate from Guna in the Madhya Bharat region of the new State of Madhya Pradesh. He was selected for Sub-Inspectors' Training Course and sent for the requisite training to the Police Training College at Sagar. After he was declared to have passed the final examination, he received the following orders : Office of the Inspector-General of Police, MP, Bhopal. No. 1548 Dated 11-12-1958. The following cadets of the 1958 Session of the M. P. Police College, Sagar, are declared to have passed the final examination and are posted as temporary Sub-Inspectors with effect from 1-1-1959, until further orders, in the districts shown against each of them. Their services are liable to be terminated at any time on one month's notice on either aide:- S. No. Order of merit Name College No. District of posting 58 Premchand 12 Jhabua Sd/- K. F. Rustamji, Inspector-General of Police, Madhya Pradesh. It is argued that the direction in the aforesaid order that the, petitioner was a temporary Sub-Inspector with effect from 1st January 1959 was a surplusage in that under Regulation 48 of the Central Provinces and Berar Police Regulations framed u/s 7 of the Police Act, 1861, he had to be appointed on probation for a period of two years. I am of opinion that this contention grounded upon Regulation 48 of the Central Provinces and Berar Police Regulations is not well-founded for the simple reason that those Regulations had not been extended to, and were not in force in, the Madhya Bharat region upto 1964. As pointed out by Tare J., the Central Provinces and Berar Police Regulations were extended to the Madhya Bharat region by the Notification No, 10175-2593-II B (i), dated 4th December 1964. As pointed out by Tare J., the Central Provinces and Berar Police Regulations were extended to the Madhya Bharat region by the Notification No, 10175-2593-II B (i), dated 4th December 1964. It is true that there was an identical provision in Regulation 48 of the Madhya Bharat Police Regulations, but it was not framed under the Madhya Bharat Police Act (No. 76 of 1950) which was in force in that region at the relevant time. Regulation 48 of the Madhya Bharat Police Regulations must, therefore, be regarded as containing merely executive instructions. That being so, the petitioner could be appointed as a temporary Sub-Inspector even in disregard of those executive instructions and his claim to the status of a Sub-Inspector on probation for two years is not well-founded. I am further of opinion that the petition is in no better position even if he could be regarded as a Sub-Inspector on probation for two years. It is not disputed that his period of probation for two years was not extended, but he was discharged from service after one month's notice with effect from 12 August 1963. A case like this, in my opinion., is governed by rule 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, which reads as follows : (1) A person appointed to a service or post by direct recruitment shall ordinarily be placed on probation for such period as may be prescribed. (2) The appointing authority may, for sufficient reasons, extend the period of probation by a further period not exceeding one year. Note, - A probationer whose period of probation is not extended under this sub-rule but who has neither been confirmed nor discharged from service at the end of the period of probation, shall be deemed to have been continued in service, subject to the condition of his service being terminable on the expiry of a notice of one calendar month given in writing by either side. (3) A probationer shall undergo such training and pass such departmental examinations during the period of his probation as may be prescribed. (4) The services of probationer may be terminated during the period of probation if in the opinion of the appointing authority he is not likely to shape into a suitable Government servant. (3) A probationer shall undergo such training and pass such departmental examinations during the period of his probation as may be prescribed. (4) The services of probationer may be terminated during the period of probation if in the opinion of the appointing authority he is not likely to shape into a suitable Government servant. (5) The services of a probationer who has not passed the departmental examination or who is found unsuitable for the service or post may be terminated at the end of the period of his probation. (6) On the successful completion of probation and the passing of the prescribed depart-mental examinations, the probationer shall be confirmed in the service or post to which he has been appointed. The Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 are of general application and there is no provision to the contrary in the Police Regulations governing a case like this. The Note below sub-rule (2) of rule 8 ibid makes it clear that, at the end of the period of probation for two years, the petitioner could be deemed to have merely continued in service subject to the condition of his service being terminable on the expiry of notice of one calendar month given in writing by either side. This is precisely what was done in this case. It follows that the services of the petitioner were legally terminated and there is no ground for interference by this Court. I agree with Krishnan J. that this petition should be dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed