MANU PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri P. K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Rastogi holding brief of Sri Manik Sinha. The case of the petitioner is that her services have been terminated vide order dated 22.7.2008, contained as annexure No.1 to the writ petition. The petitioner was working as Lady Constable on probation and her services have been terminated on the ground that she is not medically fit. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the said order firstly on the ground that under Rule 57(3) of the Railway Protection Force, Rules, 1987, which reads as under: "57.3 If, during the period of probation any extension thereof, as the case may be, the appointment authority is of the opinion that the member of the Force is not fit for permanent appointment, the appointing authority may terminate the services of a direct recruit or revert the member of the Force to the post held by him prior to such appointment. Provided that in case of termination of service a probationer shall be given a notice of one month to that effect or pay in lieu thereof;" the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without giving her notice or a month's salary in lieu thereof. The requirement of law has not been carried out and the order appears to be bad and secondly under Rule-4 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996, a proper medical board consisting of three members with one expert in the particular field is required to give an assessment of the nature of the disability through which a person becomes unuseful for service. Since none of the requirements have been followed in this case, and only a reference has been made and it has been said that her services are being terminated on the basis of the information of some railway medical authority. It has not been specified as to who is the railway medical authority and whether he is competent and expert in this field or not. Counter affidavit has also been filed in this matter, a perusal of which shows that none of these contentions have been addressed. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed supporting the contents of the writ petition. List this case in second week of July, 2009. Meanwhile, the implementation and execution of the order dated 22.7.2008 shall remain stayed.