KUBER SINGH VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as constable on 27.4.1985. He was sent for training on 20.10.1986. As he remained unauthorizedly absent, a notice to show cause was issued to him on 2.4.1987 requiring him to explain his position. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his explanation vide Annexure A-3. The competent authority passed an order vide Annexure A-5 terminating services of the petitioner along with five others. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner's service should not have been terminated as he had been taken ill and, therefore, was compelled to remain absent from the training. It is further putforth that the order of termination is stigmatic and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. A return has been filed by the answering respondents stating, inter alia, that the petitioner was sent for police training and as he remained unauthorizedly absent, it was thought appropriate to call for explanation and when the explanation was not found satisfactory his services were dispensed with. It is putforth that the petitioner belongs to disciplinary force and was trained for the purpose of disciplinary force and in that backdrop he would not be retained.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Ramesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.N. Dubey, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. It is submitted by Mr. Shrivastava that the services of the petitioner should not have been dispensed with in the manner in which it has been done and the stand taken in the return and the whole conduct of the respondents clearly reflect a stigma has been attached. Per contra, it is submitted by Mr. Dubey, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State that the petitioner did not have the right to the post as had not completed the training successfully and when he failed to do so, the authorities were at liberty to do away with his services. It is contended by him that the order of termination, by no stretch of imagination can be treated to be stigmatic.