Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar Choudhary vs The Union Of India And Ors on 7 July, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 (4) AJR 626
Author: Pramath Patnaik
Bench: Pramath Patnaik
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 5450 of 2013
...
Sanjay Kumar Choudhary, son of Jain Narayan Choudhary, resident of village-
Sakrogarh, P.O. Sahibganj, P.S. Jirwa Bari (O.P.), District-Sahibganj, Pin No.
816109, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The Union of India.
2. The Inspector General of Police, Head Quarter, Western Sector, Central
Police Force, 3rd Floor, C.G.O. Complex, C.B.D. Belapur, Navi Mumbai
(Maharashtra) 400614.
3. The Director General of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force,
Gwaliar (Madhya Pradesh) 474 001.
4. The Deputy General of Police, Administration, Western Sector, Central
Police Force, Navi Mumbai (Maharashtra) 400614.
5. The Commandant, 29, B.N., Central Reserve Police Force, Rawalpura,
Srinagar ... Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - M/s.Dilip Kumar Prasad, Sunil Kumar
Mahato and Kishore Kumar Mishra, Advocates.
For the Respondent-UOI : - Mr. Rajiv Sinha, A.S.G.I.
and Mr. Niraj Kumar, CGC.
...
C.A.V. On : - 01/03/2017 Delivered On : 07/07/2017
...
Per Pramath Patnaik, J.
Assailing the impugned order dated 20.09.2011, passed by the
Disciplinary Authority as well as the order dated 21.06.2012, passed by the
Appellate Authority pertaining to the termination of the petitioner from
services, the instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the aforesaid
orders.
2. Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the respondent-Union of
India.
3. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that, after due
selection, the petitioner was appointed for the post of 'G.D.' and went for
basic training w.e.f. 25.05.2011 at STC, Latur and due to serious ailments of
his wife, the petitioner went to his home and the petitioner returned to
training on 08.06.2011. Again due to ill health, the petitioner remained
absent from line on 19.06.2011. Without any show cause notice and
2
following the procedure as laid down in the Police Manual, the Respondent
No. 4 has been pleased to terminate the petitioner from his services vide
order dated 20.09.2011. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the
petitioner submitted representations before the concerned respondents.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal before the concerned respondents
but the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.06.2012 (Annexure-1 to the
writ petition).
Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Disciplinary as
well as the Appellate Authority, the petitioner left with no other efficacious,
alternative and speedy remedy has knocked the door of this Court invoking
the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India
for redressal of his grievances.
4. During pendency of the writ application, a supplementary affidavit
has been filed by the petitioner annexing the copy of the impugned order
dated 20.09.2011.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing, has
strenuously urged that the action of the respondents in terminating the
services of the petitioner without giving any show cause notice and
opportunity of hearing, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel
for the petitioner further submits that the impugned orders, passed by the
respondents have been passed in breach of Rule 31 of the CRPF Rules.
6. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter
affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein, it has been
submitted that the petitioner was enlisted as a Constable/GD on 12.03.2011
by the G.C., CRPF, Sindri (now GC Ranchi) and allotted to Western Sector
and he has reported in this Additional Training Centre on 25.05.2011 for the
basic training. He deserted from this campus on 30.05.2011 at 05:30 hrs.
without prior permission. Accordingly, a search party was sent to nearby
area of the campus, such as, bus stand, Railway Station, local market and all
nearby area, but he could not be traced out. Further FIR was lodged in this
regard on the same date i.e. 30.05.2011 at P.S. MIDC, Latur (M.H) and has
requested to all concerned if he will be reported/found at their
location/nearby area, he may be detained at their location and informed to
3
this ATC for taking further action. The petitioner reported on his own on
08.06.2011and submitted application that due to serious illness of his wife, he deserted from the camp and he may be allowed/permitted to join his training but again, the petitioner deserted from the camp w.e.f. 19.06.2011 and not reported till date. A registered letter No. D.V.1/2011-12-EC.II-STC dated 23.07.2011 was sent to home town address of the petitioner with direction to report on duty forthwith, but neither he reported on duty nor responded to the communication. It is a serious misconduct on the part of the Government servant and attracts Disciplinary action. The petitioner is a new appointee and is governed by the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules. It has further been submitted that as per Rule 5 (1) (a) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, the services of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the Appointing Authority or by the Appointing Authority to the Government servant. Sub Rule 1 (b) of the said Rule stipulates that the period of such notice shall be one month. Accordingly, the petitioner has been terminated from services with effect from 20.09.2011.
7. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the Respondent-Union of India has assiduously submitted that since the petitioner has remained absent from the Training Centre without prior information and a notice was also issued to the petitioner vide Registered letter dated 23.07.2011 on his leave address with direction to report on duty but the petitioner did not report, hence, provisions of Rule 5 (1) (a) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 was complied and he has been terminated from services for the said period and as such, there is no procedural as well as legal lacunae or illegality in passing the impugned order dated-20.09.2011 as well as the order passed by the appellate authority.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the rivalry submissions, I see no reason to entertain the writ application mainly for the following facts and reasons : -
(i) In order to consider the issue raised by the petitioner, it would be apposite to refer to Rule 16 (a) of the 4 CRPF Rule.
Rule-16 (a) of the CRPF Rule reads as under :-
"All members of the Force shall be enrolled for a period of three years. During this period of engagement they shall be liable to discharge at anytime of one month's notice by the appointing authority. At the quasi- permanency under the provision of the Central Civil Services (Temporary shall be continued as temporary Government employees unless they claim discharge as per schedule to the Act. Those who are temporary shall be liable to discharge on one month's notice and those who are quasi-permanent shall be liable to discharge on three months notice in accordance with the said rules, as amended from time to time."
(ii) Rule 16 is to be read alongwith Rule-5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rule, 1965. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid Rules, it is obvious that the petitioner at the time of his initial appointment and till period of 3 years has to maintain utmost devotion and discipline towards the Force as he belongs to a Member of the Disciplinary Force. Further the petitioner at the time of his initial appointment was fully aware of the service conditions that his initial enrollment in the Force is for a period of 3 years and during which period he shall be liable to be discharged at any time of one month notice by the appointing authority. It is also known to the petitioner that the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is applicable on him.
Sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 reads as under: -
"5. Termination of temporary service.-(1) (a) The services of a temporary Government Servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government Servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government Servant;
(b) the period of such notice shall be one month;
Provided that the services of any such Government Servant may be terminated forthwith by payment to him of a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he 5 was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month."
(iii) From perusal of the impugned order, I find that the services of the petitioner was temporary and before terminating his services one month's notice has already been given and after expiry of the said period, the service of the petitioner has been terminated. Therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the order passed by the appellate authority.
9. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order dated 20.09.2011, passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order dated 21.06.2012, passed by the Appellate Authority do not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit, is hereby dismissed.
(Pramath Patnaik, J.) APK