ORDER 1. Order impugned in the present petition is dated 18.10.2006 (Annexure3 to the Writ Petition), whereby petitioner was removed from the service while undergoing training as constable probationer. 2. Petitioner was appointed as constable in Jharkhand Armed Police2, Tatisilwai, Ranchi on 06.04.2006 and was sent for training in S.T.C., B.S.F. Churachandpur, Manipur. Undisputedly, on the character verification during the training, Superintendent of Police, Deoghar vide his letter dated 20.09.2006 has informed that petitioner is facing trial in Palajori P.S. Case no. 145/2005 under section 354/504/34 I.P.C. 3. Having received the report from Superintendent of Police, Deoghar, order impugned (Annexure3 to the Writ Petition) was issued against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma has argued that order impugned is illegal in view of the fact that disciplinary proceeding was not held against the petitioner which is sine qua non in view of Article 311 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 828 (b) of the Jharkhand Police Manual. 5. This court in the case of Rajesh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P. (S) No. 3936 of 2006 decided on 25.07.2012 has held as under: "To appreciate the respective arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it would be proper to reproduce the relevant provisions of Rule 668 and Appendix 41 of the Jharkhand Police Manual as under: “Rule 668. Removal or reversion of officers appointed direct or promoted on probation. The following rules shall govern first appointments and the promotion of police and ministerial officers as detailed in Appendix 41: (a) All Officers shall in the first instance be appointed or promoted on probation. Where the period of probation is not otherwise provided for in the rules it shall be for a period of two years in the case of executive officers and one year in the case of ministerial officers. The authority authorized to make such appointment or promotion, may at any time during such probationary period and without the formalities laid down in rule 828, remove an executive officer directly appointed or revert such an officer promoted who has not fulfilled the conditions of his appointment or who has shown himself unfit for such appointment or promotion. Similarly probationary period may also be extended without any show cause. No appeal shall lie in such cases. Similarly probationary period may also be extended without any show cause. No appeal shall lie in such cases. (b) Executive Officers appointed or promoted in other than permanent vacancies are also liable to removal or reversion in the manner indicated in clause (a) above.” APPENDIX 41 “LIST OF AUTHORITIES WHO CAN MAKE APPOINTMENTS AND GIVE PROMOTIONS TO DIFFERENT RANKS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. Serial Rank Period of Appointing Promoting Executive No. probation authority authority Ranks 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Deputy Superin- Three years Government Governor tendent for direct recruits and one year promoted as per rules 648 (a) and (b) res -pectively. 2. Reserve Inspe Two Years No Direct Inspector of General ctors 3. Inspector (unarmed) Two Years Ditto Ditto and its equivalent rank in technical branches. 4. Reserve Sub- Two yeas for Deputy Deputy Inspector (armed) direction Inspector Inspector recruits General General and 1 year for Promoted 5 Sub-Inspector Two years Ditto Ditto (unarmed) and subject to its equivalent Rule 659 in technical for direct branches recruits & 1 year sub. to rule 659(g) for promoted 6. Steno-Typist Sub Two years in Ditto Ditto Inspectors case of direct recruits and 1 years in case of promoted. 7. Assistant Sub Two years subject to No direct Superintendent Inspectors rule 660 recruitment but selection on range seniority seniority basis by D.I.G. 8. Typist Assistant Sub Two years Deputy Ins. Ditto Inspector and Steno for genral Typist Assistant sub Inspector 9. Havildar and its Two years No direct Superintendent. equivalent ranks subject to rule appointment in technical 660- A branches. 10. Lance naiks and 1 year Superintendent. Niaks 11. Constables including Superintendent driver constables, armourer constables etc. II. Technical 12... 13... 14... III MINISTERIAL CADRE 15 to 24 Having perused Rule 668 and Appendix 41 of the Jharkhand Police Manual, I have no hesitation to hold that constable, as mentioned at serial no. 11 in Appendix 41, shall be executive officer. I have no doubt to further hold that as per Rule 668 (a)of the Jharkhand Police Manual, all the officers at the first instance shall be appointed or promoted on probation. In other words no police officer at the first instance shall be appointed as confirmed officer. New appointee or a promotee shall always be considered as probationer. Period of probation for executive officer shall be Two years and for the ministerial officer shall be One year. In other words no police officer at the first instance shall be appointed as confirmed officer. New appointee or a promotee shall always be considered as probationer. Period of probation for executive officer shall be Two years and for the ministerial officer shall be One year. During the probation the appointing authority or the authority competent to grant promotion, as the case may be, may remove an executive officer directly appointed or promoted without following procedure provided under Rule 828 of the Jharkhand Police Manual, if in his opinion such probationerdirect appointee or promotee, as the case may be, is unfit for such appointment or promotion. Such authority may also extend the period of probation without any show cause. No appeal lies against the order of the competent officer removing the probationer or extending the period of probation." Thus, probationer can be removed/ discharged from the police service without following procedure provided under Rule 828 of the Police Manual, if appointing authority opines that probationer is unfit for the police service. In view of the admitted fact that petitioner is facing criminal trial, he seems to be totally unfit for the police service and his continuation in the disciplined police force seems to be unjustified. No fault can be attributed in the impugned order. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.