M L GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Civil Writ Petition No. 4527/1994 was listed on 21st September, 2004 when the Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents stated that these matters should be taken up along with five connected matters, namely, WP (C) Nos. 3739/1995, 3751/1995, 4780/1995, 4793/1995 and 4794/1995. The hearing of the CW No. 4527/1994 was adjourned for today with the directions that those writ petitions be also listed today as they involved similar facts and the issues arising for consideration are similar. Accordingly, today with the consent of the Counsel appearing for the parties, we have taken up the three writ petitions, namely, WP (C) Nos. 4527/1994, 4780/1995 and 4793/1995 which parties were represented for hearing and which are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioners herein were recruited on daily wage basis as constable in Central Reserve Police Force (C. R. P. F. ). It is the case of the petitioners that all the petitioners have served the respondents for more than 240 days and, therefore, they should have been regularised in service. However, it is stated that instead of regularising their services, the respondents terminated the services of the petitioners. Hence the present writ petitions seeking for a direction to the respondents to recall the order of termination passed against the petitioners and to regularise the services of the petitioners. Counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn our attention to Rule 16 of the central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. Referring to the said Rules, particularly to Clause (a), it is submitted by the Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to the status of quasi-permanent after completion of one year of service. The said clause reads as follows : period of Service-- (a) 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 any time on one month's notice by the Appointing Authority. At the end of this those not given substantive status shall be considered for quasi- permanency under the provision of the (Central Civil service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 ). Those not declared quasi-permanent under the said rules 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.)

(3.) RELYING upon the same provisions, it is also submitted by Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners were entitled to at least one month's notice before their services could be terminated by the respondents even for the reason their service were otherwise terminated by the respondents. The next submission of the Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the order of termination is punitive as the respondents themselves have used the word "misconduct" in one of their communications and, therefore, the nature of order of termination being punitive, the respondents could not have terminated the service without conducting an appropriate inquiry as envisaged under the provisions of the Rules. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents on the aforesaid pleas. During the course of his arguments Counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to the provisions of Rule 16 clause (b) which reads as follows : 16. Period of Service-- (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) Should the Central Government decide at any time to disband the Force or any part of it (either before termination of the period for which a member of the Force is enrolled or at anytime thereafter) he shall be liable to be discharged, without compensation, from the date of disbandment.