Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satendra Singh Tyagi vs Union Of India on 9 August, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
WP No. 4715/2018
( Satendra Singh Tyagi Vs Union of India & others )
(1)
Through Video Conferencing
Gwalior, dated : 09/08/2021
Shri Amit Lahoti, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Assistant Solicitor General
for respondents-Union of India.
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the order dated 27/12/2017 (Annexure P-1) as well as order dated 29/11/2017 passed by respondent No.2 and 4 whereby services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground of unsuitability under Rules 26 of the Sashastra Seema Bal, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "The Rules, 2009") and name of the petitioner has been struck off from the strength of the unit.
Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable on 15/12/2005 in Sashastra Seema Bal and was posted at 62nd Battalion SSB Bhingra (U.P.). On 27/06/2016, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner stating as to why for remaining habitually absent action may not be initiated to terminate services of the petitioner under the Rules, 2009. Reply was filed to the show cause notice. Thereafter, petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 29/06/2016 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner submitted an application on 30/07/2016 seeking reinstatement in service. The appeal was preferred against the order dated 16/07/2016 before respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 vide order dated 22/09/2016 dismissed the appeal (Annexure P-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR WP No. 4715/2018 ( Satendra Singh Tyagi Vs Union of India & others ) (2)
6). Thereafter, petitioner submitted a mercy appeal seeking reconsideration of dismissal order. Since, mercy appeal was not considered, petitioner approached this Court in WP No. 6489/2017, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Authorities that if the provision for mercy appeal exists under the Rules, respondent No.2 shall take into consideration and decide the appeal within a period of three months. Respondent No.3 quashed the order dated 16/07/2016 as well as order dated 22/09/2016 and directed respondent No.4 to pass a fresh order in consonance with Rules 26(2) of the Rules, 2009. Respondent No.4 without giving any opportunity of hearing, passed order dated 29/11/2017 and modified the punishment ("from dismissal from service" to "discharge from service"). Being aggrieved, he has filed present writ petition.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents-State opposed the prayer. It is submitted that petitioner prior to joining his service, had committed various offences and irregularities which have been reproduced in the reply. In spite of this, affording ample opportunities to improve himself, petitioner continued to repeat the in-disciplinary act. The Authorities found that petitioner had failed to improve himself. Looking to the disciplined force and the act committed by the petitioner, the Commandant found that petitioner was unsuitable to be retained in services. Accordingly, he was dismissed from service. Even the mercy appeal has been dismissed. Petitioner has been rightly terminated from service. In such HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR WP No. 4715/2018 ( Satendra Singh Tyagi Vs Union of India & others ) (3) circumstances, petitioner can not be retained in service or allowed to continue in the disciplined force. Accordingly, petition deserves to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
From the record, it is seen that petitioner has exhausted all the remedy available to him including mercy appeal. The employee of the disciplined force is supposed to be highly disciplined and should obey the order of superiors and he is also obliged to maintain decorum of the force but to the contrary, the conduct of the petitioner has been highly objectionable. The Disciplinary Authority has rightly removed petitioner from services. No fault could be found in the orders passed by the competent Authority.
Accordingly, this petition having no merit, the same is hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost.
(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge Prachi* PRACHI MISHRA 2021.08.11 10:28:39 +05'30'