UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRAKASH OJHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises in the following circumstances. Sri Prakash Ojha, the respondent was appointed as Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force on 10-1-1967. He was placed on probation for a period of two years. A notice dated 12-9-1968, copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition, was served on him intimating him that his conduct had not been found satisfactor inasmuch as he had unauthorisedly occupied Railway Quarter No. K Block No. WW/8 in the R. P. F. Lines, Mawaiya, Lucknow since June, 1968 and that he had not vacated the said quarter despite orders made by S. I/R. P. F. and the C. I/R. P. F. He was, therefore, informed that in view of the said lapse on his part it was considered that his further retention in service was not in the interest of the Department and, therefore, action to terminate his probation was proposed to be taken under R. 25 (ii) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959. He was, therefore, called upon to make representation if any, against the proposed action within the specified period. The respondent submitted his representation, Annexure 2 to the writ petition. It seems that in view of the allegations made by him in his representation the Assistant Security Officer asked the Circle Inspector, R. P. F. to enquire into the facts and submit a report thereon. The Circle Inspector consequently made inquiries into the facts of the case and submitted his report dated 13-11-1968. The Assistant security officer after making this fact finding inquiry considered the representation and passed a final order on 19-11-1968 discharging the petitioner from service with effect from that date under R. 25 (ii) of the R. P.F. Rules 1959. A copy of that order is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. A copy of the order sheet was also attached to the said order and sent to the respondent. It further transpires that the respondent then preferred an appeal against the said order. The Security Officer rejected that appeal and his order was communicated to the respondent vide Annexure 4 on 23-12-1968. The respondent then filed the writ petition which has given rise to this appeal claiming a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the said orders of the Assistant Security Officer and the Security Officer, and for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to treat him in service as Rakshak on the same scale of pay which he was drawing without any break.

(2.) The writ petition was contested. The learned single Judge having come to the conclusion that the termination of the respondent's probation was brought about in an illegal manner quashed the order passed by the Assistant Security Officer. He also quashed the order passed by the Security Officer, though the Security Officer was not impleaded as a party. Aggrieved by that decision the Union of India and the Assistant Security officer, R. P. F. have preferred this appeal.

(3.) Referring to R. 25 the learned Single Judge observed that the rule had no application to termination during the period of probation and that it applied only to the stage after the period of probation was over, or after the extended period of probation was over as the case may be, In his view the said R. 25 could not be resorted to while the period of probation was still on, hence it was concluded by the learned single Judge that the termination of the respondent's probation was brought about in an illegal manner,