Karnataka High Court
Sri S Vijay Kumar S/O Late Sanjeevaiah vs Inspector General Of Police on 28 March, 2013
Bench: N.Kumar, B.Manohar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
WRIT PETITION NO.48090/2012(S-KAT)
BETWEEN :
Sri.S.Vijay Kumar,
S/o.Late Sanjeevaiah,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.14, Hanumanthappa
Colony, Behind Krishna Floor Mill,
Seshadripuram, Bangalore-20. ...PETITIONER
By Sri.Suresh D.Deshpande, Adv.)
AND :
1. Inspector General Of Police,
Central Zone, No.5,
Nrupatunga Road,
Bangalore 560 052.
2. The Office of Superintendent
Of Police, Bangalore District,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore, Represented by
Police Superintendent.
3. Reserve Police Inspector,
D.A.R., Chennapatna,
Ramanagar District. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Smt.S.Susheela, AGA)
. . . .
-2-
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash
the order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application
No.5226/06 vide Annexure `K' and allow the application
filed by the petitioner and etc.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary
hearing, this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, which has declined to interfere with the order of dismissal against the probationer, who was found to be non-suitable to the post of Constable.
2. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as a Armed Reserve Police Constable on 20.11.1996. He took charge of his duty on 05.12.1996 and reported at Channapatna. He completed a year's service at Bidarahalli Police Training School at Magadi Main Road. The probationary period was extended for another period of six months and again it was extended from 16.12.1999 to 15.09.2000. He was suffering from illness and he took treatment from 28.08.2004 to -3- 05.12.2004 and from 06.12.2004 to 22.02.2005. In all, he has completed about nine years of service. On the ground that he was unauthorisedly absent from 01.08.2004, a deserter notice dated 18.12.2004 was issued directing him to report himself to duty. Further, the petitioner did not produce any prescriptions and bills in support of his treatment. He was in the habit of absenting and produced Medical Certificates for regularization of his absent period. The Medical Certificates were not clear and did not cover the absence period. He remained unauthorisedly absent for 2 years 49 days during the probation period and therefore, he was found unsuitable for the said post and accordingly, his services came to be terminated under KCS(CCA) Rules. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an application to the Tribunal challenging the order of termination. The Tribunal, on consideration of the entire material on record found that when a probationer absents himself for 779 days without permission and for274 days with permission, certainly it would go to show that he is not suitable to be continued in the -4- Police Force, which is a disciplined force and therefore, it found no fault with the order terminating his service. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailing the impugned order contends that in the order terminating his service, the word used is `dismissed' whereas if it is a case of discharge, he should have used the word as `discharged' and therefore illegal and requires to be set-aside.
4. By a reading of the order passed by the authorities, it clearly shows that he was found unsuitable for the said post and therefore proceeded to dismiss him from the services. May be the word `dismissal' may not be appropriate word and no stigma is attached to the said dismissal. In the light of the aforesaid facts, when he has remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of 779 days during the probation period, it only shows that he is not suitable for the post, for which he was appointed. Sufficient opportunity was -5- given to him to be prompt in attending to work, which opportunity he did not avail. With this, we do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SPS