TEIBORLANG SYIEMLIEH, SHILLONG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ''The brief facts of the petitioner 's case in nut shell is that, the writ petitioner was temporarily officiating in the Respondent 's Office since 25/07/2009 in the post of warder and subsequently being impressed by the excellent service record of the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 2 vide office letter No. PRI. 54/2009/Vol -I/864 dated 03/02/2012 was pleased to regularize the post held by the petitioner. That on 21/09/2012 the Petitioner 's service was illegally terminated for the reason best known to the Respondent and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing or show cause. That, subsequently once again the Respondent after illegally removing the Petitioner from his permanent post issued a order dated 11/10/2012 directing the Petitioner to rejoin his duty only on officiating temporary capacity. Being aggrieved by the impugned letter of termination dated 21/09/2012 and subsequent order dated 11/08/2012, the Petitioner is before your Lordship with the present writ petition. ''

(2.) MR . R Gurung, the learned counsel appeared for on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Warder on officiating basis w.e.f. 25.07.09 and thereafter, his service has been regularized w.e.f. 03.02.12 on probation for a period of 1(one) year. Unfortunately, vide order dated 21.09.12 he has been terminated from service w.e.f. 21.09.12. The learned counsel further contended that before termination, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing or to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. Hence this instant petition.

(3.) AFTER hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel at bar and after perusal of the case record placed before me, it appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as Warder on officiating basis w.e.f. 25.07.09 and his service has been regularized w.e.f. 03.02.12 and was placed under probation for a period of 1(one) year. I have also carefully gone through the impugned termination order dated 21.09.12. On reading the impugned termination order I find that, no ground has been specified or no reason has been placed on the termination order and further stated that he has just been terminated. The Assam Police Manual Part -III Rule -66 Sub -Rule -(2) & (3) specified about Major penalties and Minor penalties. In this instant case it is an admitted fact that, the respondent authority has totally ignored the Police Manual.