MAHESHKUMAR K PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. AS Supehia, Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) ON perusal of record, it becomes clear that the appointment letter, copy of which is at Annexure-A, is issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Gandhinagar, [for short 'DIGP, CRPF'], wherein it is stated that the petitioner is selected as a Sepoy in the selection process carried out between 8/12/2008 and 16/1/2009 and that his services will be governed by the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 [for short 'the Act'] and the Rules 1955 under such Act. It is also specifically stated that the appointing authority has specified eligibility and only thereupon, he has been appointed as such. Such call letter also discloses several terms and conditions as well as requirement to be fulfilled by the petitioner. Whereas, termination letter being office order dated 21/11/2011, copy of which is produced at Annexure-E, is issued by the Commandant of Central Reserve Police Force. On perusal of such office order, it becomes clear that it is issued in pursuance of provisions of sub-rule [1] of rule 5 of the Central Civil Services [Temporary Service] Rules, 1965. Though reason for termination is not disclosed in such office order, there is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner was sent for training at Chandigarh by the respondents, where he sustained injury on 8/7/2009 during his training and that he was referred to the General Hospital, Panchkula for the fracture on shaft of left femur. Further treatment was taken by him at Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar from 16/12/2009 and thereafter he was given light duty and was posted at Ajmer. For further training, the Department has referred him to Medical Superintendent, Ajmer, who had in turn, referred the petitioner to Civil Hospital, New Delhi, vide letter dated 16/8/2010. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted at Srinagar. By letter dated 2/7/2011 the petitioner was referred to IGP, Medical, Jammu. Thereafter, again the petitioner was posted under the respondent no. 3 at Ajmer vide order dated 23/11/2011, who in turn, terminated the petitioner from service as noted hereinabove.

(3.) THE petitioner has, on 25/4/2012, filed affidavit-in-rejoinder contending that report of the Board of Medical Officers dated 25/8/2011 was never supplied to him and that even under the rule under reference, only appointing authority can terminate services of petitioner and not respondent no. 2 and, therefore, the termination order is illegal since it was not issued by the competent authority. It is further stated that in view of section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities [Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation] Act, 1995, he should have been appointed on any other post having same pay-scale and service benefits and with duties which he can perform with such difficulty.