Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Ms. Asha Koul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought to demonstrate that service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the Act of 1949 and the Central Reserve Police Rules, 1955 framed under the said Act (for short, CRPF Rules of 1955). Respondent no.3, therefore, had no power to terminate the services of the petitioner having recourse to the provisions of the Rules of 1965 as they have no application to the members of the Force. On this score the impugned termination order is without any authority and therefore, illegal. Ms. Koul would say further that under the Act of 1949 and the CRPF Rules of 1955, services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without notice and inquiry because termination of service is a punishment which could not have been imposed without notice and holding enquiry. Ms. Koul sought to draw support from sections 9, 10 & 11 of the Act of 1949.

14. Per contra, Mr. K.K.Pangotra, learned ASGI, would say that petitioner being a temporary Constable was liable to be terminated in terms of Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 1965 which apply to the members of the Force by virtue of Rule 102 of the CRPF Rules of 1955. Mr. Pangotra would say further that services of a temporary Central Government Servant can be terminated without inquiry and without assigning any reason and the only remedy available to him is appeal under Rule 5 (2) of the Rules of 1965 which petitioner has not availed.

18. Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules of 1955 gives an unambiguous scheme about the enrollment and nature of service of a recruit to the Force. It clearly states that a member of the Force shall be enrolled for a period of three years and during this period, he shall be liable to be discharged any time on one month's notice by the Appointing Authority and at the end of that period, the recruit could be considered for substantive status and those who are not given substantive status may be made quasi-permanent. Once recruit is made quasi-permanent or is given substantive status, he would be governed by CRPF Rules of 1955. A recruit, who, however, is not made quasi-permanent or given substantive status, shall continue as temporary Government employee. A temporary member of the Force would be liable to be terminated/discharged with one month's notice both under Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules of 1955 as well as Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965. In addition, proviso to Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 1965 empower to the Competent Authority to terminate a temporary member forthwith without notice.

20. Neither Rule 5 (1) of the Rules of 1965 nor Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules 1955 as also not even any provision of the CRPF Act 1949 indicate much less contemplate issuing a show cause notice to or holding enquiry against the temporary Government servant (member of the Force) to be terminated.

21. The Rule position being clear too, it cannot be said that the respondent no.3 in terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect has acted without authority are illegally. It also cannot be said that the termination has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice because Rules do not contemplate issuing show cause notice and holding of enquiry.