MUNNA KUMAR PASWAN Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner had joined the services of the respondents as a Constable in the Central Reserve police Force (here in after referred to as 'crpf' for brevity), Group Centre, Muzaffarpur, Bihar on 27. 5. 2003. He was permitted to report to duty after being found Medically fit for service. The petitioner was transferred to Bangalore along with other recruits in the month of July 2003. He was under the Administrative Control of the second respondent and was posted at the Group centre, CRPF, Bangalore. In the month of February 2004, the Petitioner had taken ill and he had reported to the Station Medical Officer and was treated. Since the illness of the Petitioner was not capable of diagnosis without further tests, he was referred to the St. John's Hospital, bangalore in the month of March 2004 for an opinion. The Petitioner was diagnosed as suffering from Tuberculosis. However, the said Hospital had opined that he was fit to resume duty, but was advised to take treatment. The Petitioner was earmarked for basic training at Bangalore as on 20. 7. 2004. The Petitioner had reported to the authorised Medical attendant for Physical a checkup. When he was examined, it was reported that the Petitioner was advised to continue treatment for Tuberculosis and it was also opined that he was unfit for CRPF training and the same was mentioned in the case diary of the Petitioner. The second respondent by an order dated 2. 8. 2004, constituted a Board of Medical Officers to subject the Petitioner to a detailed Medical examination and to furnish a report, Accordingly, the Medical Board found that the Petitioner was unfit for CRPF training due to chronic Tuberculosis. The second respondent thereafter passed an order of termination of the Petitioner under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil service (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 read with Rule 16 (A) of the C. R. P. F. Rules, 1955. The Petitioner being aggrieved by this had preferred and appeal and the Appellate Authority after a thorough Examination of the case on hand had rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of termination. It is this, which is under challenge.

(2.) SHRI. Vishnu Bhat, the Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner was found fit for duty though he was suffering from Tuberculosis, by the St. John's Hospital, Bangalore. The Medical Board, however, having found that he was unfit for basic training which involved ten months rigorous training may have opined that the Petitioner was unfit for rigorous training and it is also not denied that the respondents could terminate the services of the Petitioner if the petitioner was permanently incapacitated in terms of Rule 6 of the C. R. P. F. Rules aforesaid. But since, the Petitioner was suffering from Tuberculosis and having regard to the fact that as on today, the Petitioner is fully recovered from his illness, the Petitioner having been punished with the extreme order of termination on account of illness, is wholly unreasonable. Notwithstanding the fact that the respondents may claim the power of termination of personnel found totally physically incapacitated. The circumstance of the present case is such that the Petitioner has fully recovered from illness and could not be denied continuity of service with the respondents.

(3.) PER contra, Smt, L. Y. Premavathi, the Counsel for the respondents would contend that given the sequence of events, the Board has rightly found that the Petitioner was suffering from chronicrf Tuberculosis and was unfit for basic training of C. R. P. F. This aspect V has been appreciated by the appellate Authority, where in it is found that the Medical Officer of St. John's hospital may not be aware of the service conditions and the rigorous training which the petitioner would have to undergo for over ten months and accordingly may have declared fit to resume duty, but certainly not for rigorous training and the Appellate Authority has also expressed that the Board having assessed his suitability for detailment in the basic training, has opined that he is unfit. Hence, the Appellate Authority has held that the termination is in order.