CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER Vs. UDAY SINGH MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal is preferred by the Railway Protection Force, as an employer aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 21.09.2020 made in W.P. No.10078 of 2013, quashing the order of termination of services of the respondent herein dated 10.10.2012.

(2.) The respondent herein had applied for the selection conducted by the Appellants Force for the post of Sub Inspector in Railway Protection Force (RPF). The respondent qualified in the physical endurance test, written test, interview and also the medical test on 09.04.2009. He was also sent for the training for the post of Sub Inspector at the RPF Academy, Kharagpur. After completion of the training on 10.06.2010, he was appointed as a temporary Sub Inspector at RPF at Trichirapalli with effect from 22.04.2010. He was put on probation for two years.

(3.) On 29.07.2011, the respondent was directed to undergo training in Weapon and Tactics course and also for medical examination. He was examined by the Medical Board of Railways on 09.12.2011. On 10.02.2012 he was found not fit for the post of Sub Inspector in RPF in BEE One category as glasses were not permitted for RPF for such category, but he was found eligible for Bee One level and below for other jobs. In view of the the same, a show-cause notice was issued on 18.04.2012 by the second appellant as to why the probation of the respondent should not be terminated. The same was replied by the respondent by enclosing a copy of the certificate issued by the Government Eye Hospital, Egmore, certifying that his vision was correct. Accordingly his probation was extended on 14.06.2012 by another six months. In fact a supernumerary post was created on 16.07.2012 and the respondent was accommodated. On 30.07.2012, he was once again referred to the Medical Board, which confirmed its earlier report dated 10.02.2012. Based on the same, the respondent was terminated on 10.10.2012. The respondent had filed an appeal before the first appellant on 29.10.2012, which was dismissed on 08.03.2013. The said orders were challenged by the writ petitioner in W.P. No.10078 of 2013.