KUBER SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI P.N. Dubey, Deputy Advocate General is directed to take notice on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) THE appeal is admitted for hearing. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. The appellant was appointed as a Constable vide order dated 27.4.1985, Annexure A-1 to the writ petition. He was directed to undergo training. During the training, the appellant remained unauthorisedly absent from the training w.e.f. 7.11.1986. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant and after considering the reply of the appellant, his services were terminated w.e.f. 3.5.1987 by order dated 25.4.1987, Annexure A-5 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, which was rejected vide communication dated 15.6.1989, Annexure A-6 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the appellant filed another appeal to the Director General of Police, which was also rejected vide order dated 2.4.1992 and it was communicated to the appellant vide communication dated 11.4.1992, Annexure A-7 to the writ petition. When the grievance of the appellant was not redressed at departmental level, he approached the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, for quashment of his termination order dated 25.4.1987 (Annexure A-5). After abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was transmitted to the High Court and it was heard and decided by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 7587/2003 on 4.3.2004, [2004 (2) MPWN 92]. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant remained absent without any permission from the higher authorities and the justification submitted by the appellant was not found satisfactory by the learned Single Judge. On the aforesaid grounds, the petition was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant fell sick due to stomach pain and fever at Rewa but nobody took care of him and as his physical condition was not good, he was compelled to leave the training and came to his home at Pipariya where he was treated by local doctor and later by a doctor at Hoshangabad. In the aforesaid compelling circumstances, the appellant could not attend the training and for this short fault he ought not to have been discharged from service. He submits that his absence was not a wilful act but because of the aforesaid unavoidable circumstances. He, therefore, submits that considering the aforesaid, one opportunity may be given to him to rejoin the training and if he successfully completes the training, the respondents be directed to continue him in service. Learned counsel appearing for the State contended that at present .the appellant is 42 years of age and he will not be in a position to undergo training. It is also submitted that the appellant's services were terminated in the year 1987 and after such a long lapse of time such relief cannot be allowed.

(3.) IT is clear that the appellant could not complete his training for a bona fide reason and left the training and returned to home for treatment. The appellant ought to have been afforded one opportunity by the respondents to complete his training or extend his training period. But such opportunity has not been afforded and after issuance of show cause notice his services were terminated. Considering the aforesaid, the appellant deserves one opportunity to complete his training. The respondents shall take back the appellant to training within three months. If he successfully completes the training, the respondents may continue him in service. In case of failure of the appellant to successfully complete the training, the respondents shall be within their right not to continue the appellant in service. It is also made clear the appellant shall not be entitled for any back wages, continuity of service and he may be treated as a fresh trainee. It is also made clear that relief has been granted on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and this shall not be treated as precedent in other cases. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. [2004 (II) MPWN 92 partly modified.]